The 9/11 Post 5267


Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5,267 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 101 102 103
  • John Goss

    On the BBC today Labour peer Lord West is asking for 9/11 to be taught in schools so that people don’t go away with the conspiracy theories splattered around the web. πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ Ho, ho, ho.

    They taught us at school that Cecil Rhodes was a good man who explored Africa and staked out Rhodesia for his queen. They did not teach that he stole the land from the people living there with guns over spears funded by the Rothschild family.

      • John Goss

        You shouldn’t make me laugh over such a serious subject KOWN. It’s not good for my broken left clavicle, you know the one that shook and broke all the other bones in my body till I fell crumpled in my own disintegrated molecules. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Yes Religious Studies!

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Definitely something fishy about the way that wall collapse, did you see it? I heard they found Nano-Ark of the Covenant in the rubble.

          Don’t joke about the clavicle, that’s how Spock from Star Trek used to disable the bad guys. Do you remember? He would reach out and pinch his thumb and index finger on their collar bone and they would instantly collapse. We used to try it at school, never worked though.

          • John Goss

            If you put the finger on mine at the moment I would definitely collapse. I’d collapse before you touched it in fact.

            The ancient and legendary village of Gotham (Nottinghamshire) was renowned for its wise men, who always turned out not to be so wise. In Batman Gotham is a city based on New York and run by corrupt people. Can’t even think where Bill Finger got that idea! However the more I ponder it the more I realise NY is the modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Instead of just turning the inhabitants to salt He’s doing the same to buildings. I can see where novelists get their ideas now.

    • lysias

      New evidence continues to appear that JFK was murdered by a government conspiracy managed by the CIA. Some new evidence is furnished in the new third edition of Peter Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace. Janney, the son of a high-ranking CIA official, knew some of the people involved.

      I am told that children in school here in the U.S. continue to be taught the Warren Commission fairy tale that JFK was murdered by the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.

      • John Goss

        “I am told that children in school here in the U.S. continue to be taught the Warren Commission fairy tale that JFK was murdered by the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.”

        It figures. Looks like a global problem. Those in power write the history books.

      • Keith William Hendry

        Lee Oswald wax the only person involved in the death of John Kennedy, try looking at the factual evidence instead of wishful thinking and fantasies. It was Oswald’s rifle, his wife testified to that fact, he brought it to work that morning in a package in his work colleagues car. His palm print was on the stock, he was the last person seen on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, three people on the floor directly below heard the shots and the cartridges been ejected. He wax the only person to flee the building. He went to his lodgings changed clothes and left with his pistol. Several witnesses seen him shoot officer Tippit, he hid in a Picture House and drew the gun when offices went to arrest him. He constantly contradicted himself under questioning. His brother Robert himself states he is completely satisfied Lee did the deed and knew that as soon as went to visit him. The real fairy tale comes from the bangers and rockets of the conspiracy fantasises from your ilk. In 50+ years no one from the conspiracy brigade provided any credible evidence of worth who else did the deed and virtually no two theories are the same. Jokers the lot of you!

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Keith William Hendry January 8, 2017 at 16:40
          Lee Harvey Oswald was Military Intelligence; he not only did not fire a shot, he tried his utmost (along with other Intel, including his friend Tippet) to stop the plot.
          Even a Congressional Committee found there had been a conspiracy, but didn’t name the conspirators. People called to be answer to the Committee died like flies shortly before they were due to testify.
          Waste of time, I suspect, but read ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’ by Belzer and Wayne; ‘Me And Lee’ by Judyth Vary Baker, ‘Dr. Mary’s Monkey’ by Haslam, and learn a thing or two.
          You almost certainly believe that the Yanks landed on the Moon, that Pearl Harbor was an ‘unexpected attack’, that the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ LIE actually occurred, and that a guy on dialysis in a cave with a laptop was responsible for 9/11.
          But don’t feel bad! At least you give us old-timers a giggle!
          I suggest you subscribe to a periodical that fits your apparent level, like https://www.beano.com/subscribe
          That way, you can have a laugh, as well as us.

      • Patricia McCann

        Yes John Goss – he made an excellent job on that, as he does in all the areas he invesigates. Did my link to Judy’s FAQs (33) answer your question?
        Interested to know if you have any thoughts on the George Webb you tube series ‘where is braverman?’

  • Clark

    Why was a transit instrument used on WTC7 specifically, and at what time was it applied? Anyone know? I’ve only encountered a few, passing references to this instrument, so authoritative references would be appreciated.

    • Node

      Looks like reports of a transit instrument being used stem from this quote by Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden:

      “By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.”

      There’s a discussion about it here …..
      https://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/wtc-7-fema-report-and-nist-prelim-report-what-about-pre-collapse-leaning-and-the-transit/
      …… particularly about why NIST never mentioned it.

    • Clark

      Incidentally, I had a glance at the diagrams of Building 7 on the site of that university group in Alaska (I think). It looked like a right pig’s ear. It’s remarkable that it came down so close to symmetrically because there was little symmetry in the design. Columns dotted about, seemingly almost randomly. Beams running here, there and everywhere, it looked like afterthoughts tacked onto afterthoughts. It looked like they’d stacked the absolute maximum of floor area onto the available site. It didn’t offend my sense of engineering elegance quite as much as the principle of the PWR, but in its own way was even more horrible.

  • John Goss

    Resident Π”ΡƒΡ€Π°ΠΊ writes on the Never Trust a Man who does not wear a Waistcoat thread: “anyone can look at your [i.e. my] twitter account to see you are pushing a petition from the Larouche organisation.”

    First of all I hardly ever use Twitter. Secondly it does not matter to me what organisation is asking for a proper investigation into the events of 9/11. An investigation is necessary so I sign petitions providing I mostly agree with them. I would have thought you might welcome an investigation into the death of your cousin and all the other people wantonly murdered by persons unknown. Perhaps not. Shame.

  • flemlad

    “The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.”
    Craig, you seem to be unaware of the case of the 59-story story Citicorp building was secretly retrofitted at night over the course of several months in 1978 without the knowledge of tenants, the general public, or the media.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
    In light of that, it’s hardly “laughable” to consider that those WTC buildings could have been rigged prior to 9/11

    • Node

      There was an unprecedented power down in the South Tower the weekend before 9/11 …. final preparations? CC TV and security door locks were disabled. Here’s an interview with IT specialist Scott Forbes who’s evidence was ignored by the 9/11 commission.

      http://georgewashington.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

      To save Kempe the trouble, here’s the unconvincing ‘official’ denial of the significance of this evidence.

      http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

      • Node

        Apologies. I was aware of the Scott Forbes interview and Googled the above link. I’ve just noticed that this is based on a short telephone conversation. Here’s the more interesting email interview (conducted through a series of instant messaging and e-mails) I was looking for :
        http://killtown.blogspot.co.uk/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html

        I suppose at that time I would have been working one weekend in every 6 or 8 weeks, so it was not unheard of. Working in Technology you get used to working ‘out of business hours.’ I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented.
        [….]
        We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was. To shutdown all of our financial systems, all inter-related and with connections and feeds to may outside vendors and suppliers was a major piece of work. Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the ‘ordinary’ building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.

        • John Goss

          Scott Forbes saw an aircraft from a distance going into the South Tower. One of his colleagues saw the first plane. So if planes did fly into the WTC twin towers how come pilots for 9/11 truth have freedon of information that at least one of the planes was still flying after the crash?

          • Paul Barbara

            Even if ‘planes’ or other flying objects did hit the Towers, it does not mean they were the alleged Boeings.
            The ‘Black Box’ info provided to investigators of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon certainly showed that whatever flying object it was recording did approach the Pentagon, it also showed that at all times it was too high to have struck the Pentagon (the video explaining this is somewhere on Pilots for 911 website).
            Other interesting facts were all four alleged hijacked aircraft had very few alleged ‘passengers’; that these alleged ‘passengers’ were very high in people associated with Government agencies of some kind or other, and all four ‘aircraft’ were lost to radar for brief periods, whilst in the vicinity of military bases (shades of Northwoods).
            Two of them weren’t even scheduled to fly that day; and an airline employee who was some kind of airline buff found one of the so-called hijacked aircraft was still in commercial use long after 9/11!

          • Paul Barbara

            Then there was the provably staged pictures of the cab with a light pole stuck through the window. The guy’s wife worked for a government agency (FBI, I think) and the guy’s story about where it happened was esily disproved by investigators (as well as the impossibility of a light pole crashing through the windscreen, without leaving even scratches on the bonnet).
            Although the cab driver never changed his story, he did say he was just a little guy, and he didn’t want to get involved (or some such wording). And he was well advised to continue lying; if he told the truth, it would show the whole Pentagon thing was staged – something the PTB could not allow. He would have been ‘Brown Bread’, like Barry Jennings and many others.

    • Kempe

      It took three months to weld 200 strengthening plates into the 59 storey Citicorps Center, to do the same to all 11770 columns in each tower of the WTC would take 14 years. Even if you were to employ ten times the people it’s still nearly eighteen months and how would you get so many people in and out of the buildings every night unnoticed?

    • Clark

      Flemlad, did you discover the Citicorp building retrofit from my comment about it a few pages back? That’s the first time I’ve ever seen it referenced by a demolition theorist.

  • John Goss

    After the toppling part of the South Tower had started its fall instead of following the path of least resistance, the way it was falling, it suddenly changed its direction of fall.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/

    I do not need to explain further because the above blogger has done it for me. But just to be sure that the South Tower started falling outward before it was brought back in by explosives you can watch it for yourself in this compilation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

    Now watch this building collapse which shows how the South Tower should have fallen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

    Notice too the amount of rubble for such a small building. So where did the twin towers go?

    • Paul Barbara

      Remember there were 5 or 6 basement levels; also the concrete was pulverised and ended up all over Manhattan.
      With normal demolitions, they do not pulverise all the concrete, as it would create a horrible mess all around the area, which would need to be cleaned up. When you consider the steel that was shipped out to China, and the considerable amount buried at Fresh Kills Landfill, there’s not much unaccounted for:
      http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
      ‘…According to FEMA, [for what their word is worth] more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.

      Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ
      Hugo Nue Schnitzer’s Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ
      Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ
      Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ …’

      • Clark

        Paul, thanks for correcting John Goss. Sadly, I doubt it’ll have any long-term effect. Before accepting his conclusions about angular momentum, please consider this:

        Q – What imparted angular momentum to the top section of WTC2 in the first place?

        A – An imbalance in the upward forces (ie. torque) from the structure beneath.

        Q – What could have altered the angular momentum of the top section of WTC2 shortly after collapse began?

        A – Forces (ie. torque) from the structure beneath.

  • John Goss

    Following Richard Gage’s refutation of the NIST account of the demolition of Building 7 many more engineers and architects joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and by Christmas last year there were more than 2,750. Here are some of their comments.

    β€œI’m a chemical engineer with bachelors and masters degrees in engineering from the University of Michigan. I’m an authority on the flammability of materials and I have testified in court on this subject. WTC 7 was demolished with explosives attached to the structural frame. Hardly anything in the building was flammable; it was mostly steel, glass, and masonry.” β€” Bruce Caswell

    β€œMy experience has included being president of three different architectural firms in Michigan and New England. My outrage and shock at being asked to believe the net of lies surrounding this event matches the feelings of the founding members of AE911Truth. As I watched the towers fall on television, I knew the rapid destruction on display made no scientific sense. Though the tentacles of this subject run in every direction, this betrayal of our national confidence and honor as citizens must not be allowed to stand.” β€” Paul R. Bilgen, AIA

    β€œI’m a licensed architect familiar with structural steel design. When considering the yield point of A36 steel and the redundancy factors included in all 21st century buildings, these buildings could not have been collapsed by an airplane of any kind. This was obvious to me at the time I saw the collapse on television. When the first building came down I told my wife that β€˜airplanes cannot make that happen.’” β€” John C. Heflebower

    β€œI have 30 years of diverse design and on-site experience in the engineering field. My most relevant credentials are my extensive experience in computer simulation of structures and mechanical components. I recently reviewed much of the documentation that AE911Truth has supplied and also other sources. My conclusion, based on my engineering experience and intuition, is that structures that are struck in a random nature do not respond with the type of symmetry we see in the WTC towers collapse. In fact, if one were hypothetically tasked to collapse these towers as symmetrically as they fell, it would be nearly impossible, at least for someone without expertise in demolition or other advanced techniques.” β€” Attilio Colangelo

    β€œI have twenty-seven years experience as an engineer, the past eighteen of which have been as an independent consultant. During my career, I have developed a specialty in analyzing and addressing residential and commercial buildings with structural problems. It’s taken a long time for me to come to terms with the real possibility that the true causes of the WTC collapses on 9/11 were obscured from the general public and perhaps much worse. We must know the truth, because what’s left of our democracy depends on it.” β€” Richard Herschiag

    β€œI have worked in almost every city in NY. I have been licensed 24 years doing a variety of work from residential to industrial. I was on the phone with another architect on 9/11. We both noted the flashes on the floors below the collapsing floor when the towers came down. Two years later I was involved in demolishing six buildings in Kodak Park. I realized it was like watching 9/11 all over again. I have no doubt that WTC was controlled demolition. If the mast was not controlled it would have been a sideways fall killing 10,000 more.” β€” James Myers

    β€œI’ve been involved in construction all my professional life. I’ve seen controlled demolitions, and from the day of 9/11/01 watching the towers come down, I knew it had to be a controlled demolition. For the government to not even investigate this possibility in a serious way is beyond unbelievable.” β€” Thomas Kahler

    β€œI have fifteen years experience in defense and private industry engineering and project management. Recognizing that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were instances of controlled demolition is not the hard part. The hard part is overcoming the emotional hurdle that our government betrayed us. I went into shock and had to grieve when I accepted this. As a country we need to face this anger and grief if we are to come to terms with ourselves and leave a legacy we can reconcile with.” β€” Ben Werner

    β€œI have a Bachelor of Architecture and a Master of Architectural (Structural) Engineering. I remember being very surprised by the collapse of the Twin Towers after the planes struck. Despite the damage and fires, it did not seem possible. I also remember reports of Building 7 being evacuated because it was expected to come down from sustained damage. I accepted the explanations given by the media. It wasn’t until years later that I started examining the research of experts on this and other websites and rethinking my discomfort with the official account. From an understanding of steel failure, I would expect any collapse to be gradual and asymmetric. If the official story were true, it would be a major embarrassment to the US design and construction industry that these towers failed so catastrophically, especially Building 7. I want to stand on the right side of history. We all deserve a real investigation with subpoena power, that explores every possibility.” β€” Forrest Mertz

        • Clark

          “We seem to have scared ’em orf!”

          “… trying to bullshit us with crank science”

          Well that about sums it up. Personally I got bored attempting to “discuss” with the closed-minded, and pissed off by the constant deception and abuse. Truthers seem to enjoy bullying; you really need to examine your own souls, and recognise the seed of fascism within. I’ll be as glad as Kempe when it finally dies the death.

          Poor Susan Lindauer; poor Sibel Edmonds. With “friends” like the “Truth movement”, who needs enemies? The last show ever…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VLNfMcOW_E

        • Paul Barbara

          They wouldn’t admit they were wrong if their lives depended on it. My comment exchange with Clark re Barry Jennings proves it – Clark was just plain wrong, so he dropped the subject, after denigrating Jenning’s (RIP) testimony.

          • Clark

            I have posted corrections of my own comments many times. I make a point of doing so, because I respect other readers. The fact that you fail to notice is your own fault. Here’s a recent one:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-647183

            Jennings’ various accounts contradict each other. That does not reflect badly upon him as a person; it is simply normal, particularly in extreme circumstances. It is, however, a verifiable fact.

            It is also a verifiable fact that BB18 are standard mains electrical components and not “special fuses used for remote controlled demolition”, as you pretended, and never retracted. It is you and your blinkered gang who never admit error, and psychologically project that fault onto all who dare to point out errors in the risible “evidence” you present.

            I have tried to warn you how much the groupthink you encourage and enforce damages the cause by alienating reasonable onlookers. It falls upon deaf ears. There will never be a proper investigation of 9/11. In part, that is because you and your ilk actually take pride in driving away those who would support it, such as myself.

            Feel the pride. You have earned it, by seeding bitterness in my heart.

  • Paul Barbara

    Yet more NIST fraud:

    ‘Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire’: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/321-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-5.html

    ‘AE911Truth β€” Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11
    If there were a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out through the cooling air exhaust vents. If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient oxygen to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

    Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire
    By Chris Sarns

    ‘….NIST’s Shyam Sunder misinformed Popular Mechanics in its March 2005 article β€œDebunking the 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on Floor 5 of WTC 7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.

    The magazine wrote: β€œSecond, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. ‘There was no firefighting in WTC 7,’ Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: ‘Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time.’”

    A month later, in April 2005, NIST published an interim report on WTC 7 that said essentially the same thing: β€œThis finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.” β€” NIST Part IIC, April 5, 2005, page 38….’

    NIST lives up to it’s Motto: ‘Don’t let facts get in the way of a useful lie’!

    • Clark

      Oh do try to attack a valid target rather than a straw man. NIST eliminated diesel fires as a cause in their final report on WTC7. Of course it’s too much to expect you to read what you criticise.

      • Paul Barbara

        They didn’t have much choice, as it had been abundantly made obvious to them by others.
        That does not mitigate the fact they are liars and traitors, and should be in jail till Lucifer comes to claim them.

        • Clark

          Paul, the article you quote refers to March and April 2005. Although the NIST investigation had begun in 2004, little had been done as staff were working on the investigation into the Twin Towers until September 2005.

          You seem to act a lot like governments themselves do; blame the workers like doctors, engineers and firefighters, but let the politicians and spooks off without a murmur. Have you got your priorities wrong or are you a shill?

  • Clark

    EMS DIVISION CHIEF JOHN PERUGGIA – Transcripts:

    Engineer predicted of collapse of WTC1:

    At that point I went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I’m not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him “You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse.” So, he left off in that direction.

    Rubble from WTC2 smashed into lobby of WTC7:

    “Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn’t know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

    – I thought that part of the building or the facade of the building had collapsed. You know, it was too dusty to see outside, so we didn’t know what happened, but I knew something real bad happened. I knew that everyone that we had in the lobby, or we thought everyone was accounted for. Again, there was a lot of rubble in the lobby, probably a few feet. The facade was all broken”

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies: Speaking Out, Pursuing 9/11 Justice’:
    http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=ddda5557ff&e=%5BUNIQID%5D

    ‘oday we bring you Part 2 of our recap of the events held last month in Boston, Massachusetts.

    In Part 1 of the recap, we shared videos of our presentations at the BSA Space on December 16. Now we’re delighted to release videos of β€œTruth Is Where Our Healing Lies,” the event held on December 17.

    This gathering of diverse speakers included, among other things, the first public appearance of former NIST employee Peter Michael Ketcham, as well as the first public screening of an excerpt from AE911Truth’s upcoming documentary of the Justice In Focus symposium, featuring attorney Daniel Sheehan’s keynote address.

    We hope you’ll find the videos of these events informative, useful, and inspiring!………’

    • John Goss

      It is good that a man, Peter Michael Ketchum, a former high-ranking employee with NIST, though not on the 9/11 inquiry, has had the bravery to stand up for science and engineering. His speech is commonsense. When the truth does finally emerge it is, as he says, going to be a hard wound to heal, most painful at the beginning. Speaking on his own behalf he asked the perfectly legitimate question: “why does NIST not blow the whistle on itself?”

      I think this might be the most troubling aspect of the outgoing US government. That NIST might blow the whistle on itself has made the incumbency of the president-elect unwelcome and given birth to the most unacceptable malpractices against Donald Trump. Israel is already bombing Syria in an attempt to start a war to end humankind in fear that the truth might emerge.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-12/israeli-jets-bomb-damascus-military-airport-syria-vows-it-will-respond-flagrant-atta

      • Clark

        Israel is bombing Syria probably because Israel knows that it will be able to do as it likes so far as Trump is concerned. Trump doesn’t merely support Israel; he supports the Israeli Right – Likud and Netanyahu.

        How on earth do you get things so wrong? Don’t you even listen to Trump’s own pronouncements? Trump is an islamophobe, and has said he will introduce registration for all Muslims in the US. He has said he will expose the Saudi role in 9/11, but he’s also opposed to the deal with Iran that brought Iranian oil back onto the international market. That is already pushing oil prices back up (which will make fracking profitable again), but Trump is backed by Koch Brothers coal money. Trump has chosen Pence as his vice-president:

        Pence supported the USA Patriot Act on its passage in 2001, and in 2005 called the act “essential to our continued success in the war on terror here at home”

        Trump is a barefaced liar. He knows full well how weak the Twin Towers were, and directly lied about it because he’s a property developer.

        I think many Truthers are blind to the Right-wing roots of the sites they visit. I’ve tried in vain to point this out before; YouTube vids promoting demolition that are really just vehicles for attacking prominent figures of the Left including Michael Moore, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and physicist Michio Kaku. None of you take any notice, merely because I challenge Truther mythology. You’re helping to sign our collective death warrant.

        • Node

          Trump is a barefaced liar. He knows full well how weak the Twin Towers were, and directly lied about it because he’s a property developer.

          Evidence?

          • Clark

            I’ve presented many links about the weakness of the Twin Towers; do you want me to repost them? Out-of-court compensation was paid out to many families and victims. Trump said the Towers were strong. His motive to lie is obvious.

          • Node

            I’m flagging up a pattern to your posts. If someone disagrees with you, you say they’re lying. Nobody is honestly mistaken in your world. They either agree with you or they’re lying.

          • Clark

            I say Trump is a liar. As a billionaire property developer he must have expert advice from structural engineers, at least for insurance assessment, and so could not have been mistaken and therefore was lying. He also told lots of lies during his presidential campaign.

            Most of the misinformation on this thread is bullshit rather than lies. Someone reads something on some site or watches some YouTube vid, and because it supports demolition or some other piece of Truther dogma they accept it without question and repeat it. Given the involvement of Right-wing sites like Infowars, many of these memes are coined as lies, but reposting them here without verification is merely bullshitting. Just as damaging, though.

            Example above. John C. Heflebower, fourth paragraph:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-648228

            β€œI’m a licensed architect familiar with structural steel design. When considering the yield point of A36 steel and the redundancy factors included in all 21st century buildings, these buildings could not have been collapsed by an airplane of any kind”.

            But the Twin Towers were not made of A36 steel, so was this bullshit or lies? It got published at A&E9/11 Truth, and with 2750 architects and engineers you’d have though one of them would have noticed. Maybe some did but chose to keep quiet to avoid being hounded like me and Kempe are.

        • Clark

          How can you get it so wrong??? You say 9/11 was “the new Pearl Harbour” and that Larry Silverstein was central to the conspiracy, yes? Listen to Trump’s now famous interview on 9/11; at 1 minute 3 seconds he says:

          “You look at Larry Silverstein, is a terrific owner in New York and a very good friend of mine who I just called, I was worried about him…”

          and at 04:25 Trump says that if he were president:

          “Well, I’d be taking a very, very tough line, Alan, I mean, you know, most people feel they know, at least approximately, the group of people who did this and where they are, but, boy would you have to take a hard line on this, this just can’t be tolerated […]This was probably worse than Pearl Harbour…”

          THESE versions, by Infowars and STF News, quote his bit about aircraft maybe carrying bombs, but BOTH omit BOTH sections I’ve pointed out. Infowars is well known to be a Right-wing site.

          You people are being led a merry dance by Right-wing propagandists and liars, and for going to the trouble of telling you, you call me a crackpot and try to “scare me orf”.

      • Kempe

        ” Peter Michael Ketchum, a former high-ranking employee with NIST ”

        He was an iPhone APP developer. Hardly high-ranking and he left NIST in 2011. I’d hate to think he was laid off and is just out for revenge.

        • John Goss

          “I’d hate to think he was laid off and is just out for revenge.”

          No. You would like to think that was the case. Still the same old ad hominem Kempe. Attack the person not the truth of his argument.

          • Kempe

            Truth? Which truth would that be? Which version of the myriad conspiracies?

            Not an ad hominem attack, I leave those to others, just pointing out the errors in your description of the man and pondering on his motivation.

          • John Goss

            Quite clearly you have not watched it. You still have not debated it. Like I said: “Still the same old ad hominem Kempe.” The man you try to denigrate as an iPhone APP developer is something more than that. He has lower and higher degrees in mathematics. This is from his Linkedin page.

            “Mathematician
            National Institute of Standards and Technology
            August 1997 – October 2011 (14 years 3 months)Gaithersburg, MD

            The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a nonregulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. Founded in 1901, its mission is to support and promote innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology.

            β€’ Created visualizations and animations of scientific data.
            β€’ Developed programs and tools for scientific computing.
            β€’ Organized and hosted applied mathematics seminar series.
            β€’ Published research papers on scientific computing and visualization.
            β€’ Assisted with completion of the digital library of mathematical functions.
            β€’ Participated in development of the interoperable message passing interface specification.
            β€’ Assisted physical scientists with research applications on high performance computing systems.
            β€’ Participated in activities of the federal information technology research and development program.

            (Open)1 honor or award

            Bronze Medal Award for Superior Federal Service

            Awarded for technical achievement in scientific visualization. The Bronze Medal Award is the highest honor presented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology”

            So, Kempe, ad hominem Kempe, (with degrees in what?) feels justified in trying to ridicule him. Shame. But it is what we have come to expect.

          • Kempe

            This is his Linkedin page, not just a selective quote from it.

            https://www.linkedin.com/in/petermichaelketcham

            What does it say at the top?

            Conspiracists have talked up this guy as a “high ranking” official in NIST and implied that he has relevant specialist knowledge. It’s not an ad hominem attack to point out that this is incorrect.

          • John Goss

            Like I said “ad hominem”.

            Now you’re trying to wriggle out of your attempt to belittle his former work with NIST because he has moved into trying to held the disabled. Sometimes Kempe it seems you have no shame.

            And this is what is says directly below his current job description.

            “Mobile application developer currently building a data visualization application for Apple iOS devices with an emphasis on accessibility for disabled users. Other interests include data science, virtual reality environments, haptic technologies, hierarchical data formats, matrix computations, and Swift numeric data types for rational numbers, complex numbers, and quaternions.”

  • Paul Barbara

    And poor old Clarke STILL hasn’t explained how the staircase exploded under Jenning’s feet in WTC 7 when neither of the Twin Towers had collapsed. Maybe the staircase was as weak as the Twin Towers, and simply exploded because they couldn’t withstand the weight of two men descending at the same time. Actually, there were even more than two men in the Towers; perhaps their weight had a great deal to do with the Towers’ collapse.
    Perhaps the architects of the Twin Towers got their degrees from Meccano Ltd.

    • Clark

      I suspect that the staircase in WTC7 was violently destroyed by a heavy impact from the collapse of WTC2. That would be consistent with this video which shows the state of WTC7 between the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

      Jennings didn’t suffer deafness and wasn’t hit by shrapnel. The staircase collapsed beneath him and he had to drag himself back up; he was not blown backwards. Of what he saw when he got to a window and looked out, he said something like “look one way and the building was there, look the other and the building was gone“, so that’s also consistent with the staircase being damaged by the collapse of WTC2.

      • Clark

        If you’re desperate to believe that Jennings was murdered, you can reason as follows.

        WTC7 had been pre-rigged with demolition charges. Some explosives loader and site photographer says that staircases are always deconstructed before a building demolition, but in the case of WTC7 it was decided to do this, too, with explosives. Jennings was caught when one such charge – but only one – was detonated for no apparent reason at about the same time as WTC2 collapsed. Jennings survived and went on to give multiple interviews, including on national TV, but years later got ill, and was killed while under medical observation in hospital by someone working for a bunch of engineers because an engineering report was due to be released two days later.

        Yeah, that makes perfect sense…

        • Clark

          There’s another problem with the “Jennings witnessed a demolition charge” hypothesis. Apart from the proposed explosion on the WTC7 staircase, what else in Jennings’ account could be the collapse of WTC2? That collapse wrecked WTC7’s faΓ§ade and deposited much rubble in the lobby; you’d expect Jennings to have noticed something.

      • Node

        that would be consistent with this video which shows the state of WTC7 between the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1:

        The video is titled “Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse ” which suggests that it was filmed after BOTH towers had fallen.

          • Clark

            The title β€œInside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse” does seem to suggest the collapse of WTC7, but it can’t be because the exclusion zone around WTC7 was enforced hours before it collapsed, yet in that video various people are inside WTC7.

          • Clark

            You can also confirm that the video was taken late morning by the angle of shadows; the Sun was yet to reach due south. The section in and around WTC7 itself has no shadows due to the dust cloud (which itself confirms the approximate time), but sections before and after confirm it.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark January 14, 2017 at 15:02
        ‘…β€œlook one way and the building was there, look the other and the building was goneβ€œ, so that’s also consistent with the staircase being damaged by the collapse of WTC2.’
        For God’s sake, how do you work that one out? When Barry Jennings broke the window with a fire extinguisher and looked out, and said he looked one way and the building was there, looked the other way and it was gone’ was AFTER the stairs had exploded beneath him, and AFTER he had made his way back up to the 8th floor.
        That means, that when the stairs exploded, both Towers were still standing.
        So WHAT caused the stairs to explode?
        If you can’t get your head round that, it’s no wonder you come up with all sorts of rubbish about how weak the Twins were, without, of course, a shred of evidence.

        • Clark

          That’s right, AFTER, meaning the building fell BEFORE, ie. around the time that the starcase collapsed beneath Jennings.

          I’ve posted copious evidence of the weak, shoddy design and inadequate fire protection of the Twn Towers. Why pretend otherwise? Are you supporting the official story that the Twin Towers “performed well”?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 15, 2017 at 12:51
            ‘…That’s right, AFTER, meaning the building fell BEFORE, ie. around the time that the starcase collapsed beneath Jennings…..’

            What is the matter with you? You can’t be as stupid as you make out.
            Timeline: Jennings and co-worker (Hess, I believe) start to descend the stairs to exit the building; the staircase explodes beneath them at the 6th floor; they make their way back up to the 8th floor; Barry Jennings breaks a window with a fire extinguisher and looks out, looks one way and sees both Towers STANDING; looks back and one has collapsed. BUT THEY WERE BOTH STANDING WHEN THE STAIRS EXPLODED; it doesn’t matter that it was only microseconds after they had got back to the 8th floor and Jennings looked out, that one collapsed. The important thing is, neither had collapsed at the time of the staircase explosion.
            Furthermore, the official line is that it was WTC 1 falling debris that impacted WTC 7; that was, of course, the second Tower to collapse, and not for some time after WTC 2.
            The timeline is incredibly simple to follow, but somehow you can’t seem to follow it.

          • Clark

            “and looks out, looks one way and sees both Towers STANDING; looks back and one has collapsed”.

            What? You mean he was looking the wrong way, didn’t hear the collapse and was gawping at WTC1 for so long he failed to notice the collapse of WTC2? Pull the other one; it’s got bells on.

          • Clark

            “Furthermore, the official line is that it was WTC 1 falling debris that impacted WTC 7”

            What? You’re using the official story to make your case? Getting desperate?

            Look at the video above:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-649542

            And read the testimony:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-649150

            WTC2’s collapse burst into WTC7, and wrecked the lobby at least. Did Jennings miss it? Or was it what he experienced in the stairwell?

  • John Goss

    Some might already have seen this since it has been around more than four years. It is an ex-CIA operative’s opinion that the towers were demolished by nano-thermite. The clips are from a variety of sources including the NIST releases. Every time I see those poor people hanging from windows with no means of escape, and think of all those trapped inside who cannot get to a window, it brings tears to my eyes. We must fight these government lies, and those pushing this false narrativeon their behalf, for those they mercilessly slaughtered without compunction. Until the truth is out we must persevere.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws

    • Clark

      That ex-CIA operative is Susan Lindauer. She has vital first-hand testimony of her own, which has absolutely nothing to do with demolition of the Twin Towers.

      The visits of vans in the night was seeded to her from “a senior official in the State Department”, probably the most neocon-infiltrated of US departments. Tellingly, this official insisted upon anonymity.

      The trucks in the night (1) could have been anything, (2) are uncorroborated, and (3) do not coincide with the alleged “power down” mentioned above on this page.

      Demolition of the Twin Towers (1) has no supporting evidence, (2) has very strong evidence against it (most notably inward bowing and buckling of the perimeters of both WTC1 and 2), and (3) is dismissed by the vast majority of mechanical engineers and relevant academics the world over. Frankly, demolition of the Twin Towers is not credible.

      I find it almost certain that this senior State Department official seeded the quite possibly false story of trucks in the night to discredit Susan Lindauer, because of her highly damaging first-hand testimony.

      Truther peer-group pressure and bullying, like the attempts to drive me from this thread, finished the job. Demolition of the Twin Towers is effectively being used as a psy-op it cripple and fracture the Truth Movement.

      The Twin Towers were of cheap, lousy design and construction, with inadequate fire protection – there is copious evidence for this. The people trapped on the upper floors were killed by economic forces that the Truth Movement leaves unchallenged, as it wastes its energy and discredits itself with “demolition” that the conspirators know to be forever unprovable, for the very sound reason that it never happened.

      John, the least you could do ifor Susan Lindauer is to post a summary of her first-hand evidence and the pay-off that went to her CIA handler.

      • Clark

        “The Twin Towers were of cheap, lousy design and construction, with inadequate fire protection”

        The “official story”, of course, is that the Twin Tower buildings “performed well”. Yeah, right.

        • Clark

          Victim and family compensation for the rapid and unprecidented building collapses were all settled out-of-court, with gag-orders imposed.

          Sorry for all the afterthoughts; there’s a lot to remember. It would help if I wasn’t so isolated.

          • Nikko

            You would not be so isolated if you your claims were not physically impossible.

            On Jan13, 23.48 I invited you to prove your claim that debris from WTC 2 could have easily reached WTC 7. Either you did not see it or chose to ignore it. OK, so let’s consider some numbers now

            The plane hit WTC 2 at floor 80 or thereabouts and let’s assume a trajectory from this position hitting WTC 7 at floor 20, so a drop of 60 floors. Consider a square tube 15cm*15cm and 15mm thick; steel density of 7,500kg/m3. Assume drag coefficient of 0.82 for the area along the length of the tube.

            This object would take 7.1 seconds to drop 60 floors. The distance between the buildings is 200m, so an average horizontal velocity of 28m/s. Taking drag into account the initial velocity would have been 32m/s. Feel free to check my numbers.

            I’ve lost count of the number of time I have asked you to explain where did the lateral energy to break the buildings apart and eject debris laterally came from. In the initial phase of the collapse the vertical velocity of the falling structure would have been low (7 m/s) and yet the horizontal velocity of the ejecting debris 32 m/s.

            So I ask again, what is the mechanism for creating lateral forces capable of ripping the whole building apart and ejecting debris at high velocity. You have promised some numbers so there is your chance.

          • Clark

            To reach Building 7, debris from the impact zone had to spread by about 35 degrees. Big deal; a collapsing tower of dominoes can manage that. That’s without considering that stuff hitting the ground would not stop dead (d’uh) but vector off in all sorts of unpredictable directions – try watching a rugby ball hit the ground. Further, WTC6 was between WTC2 and WTC7, supplying a raised point for such debris to deflect from.

            If you want to know where the lateral energy came from, try watching a game of snooker, or ask yourself how sailships manage to sail into the wind πŸ™‚

          • Clark

            And Nikko, I may be isolated among the demolition theorists on this thread, but among the worldwide physics and engineering communities, the vast majority reject demolition of the Twin Towers.

          • Clark

            Oh, and try watching some actual controlled demolitions. They DON’T eject large pieces of debris. Are you suggesting that the alleged conspiring demolition designers were so incompetant that they placed big bombs in the middle of open office space (where tens of thousands of incoming staff completely failed to notice them) so that the air pressure wave propelled large pieces of perimeter rather than fracturing them, as small charges in contact with the structural frame would have? Maybe they strapped minature rockets to the frame, just to create a conundrum? Or maybe the perimeter peeled outwards, as is consistent with the pile-driver theory. I’ll go with the latter, thanks.

          • Nikko

            But the towers were not made from loosely stacked pieces like domino towers, so your example is completely inappropriate. The analogy with sailing or snooker fails to account for the higher velocity of the ejected material. Your answers reveal how little you understand physics.

          • Clark

            This is WTC1, but it’s a very clear shot:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUofuu36hag

            From just before 0:10 to the change of shot at 0:12, watch the huge section of perimeter toppling outwards to the right. Does a tree that’s felled require explosives strapped to the trunk to make it topple? No. The motion of that perimeter section alone appears to account for some 150 metre of dispersion, before it has even finished falling. Smaller debris hit by it could have been batted even further. The same effect is seen multiple times in both collapses, but this example happened to be clear of dust.

            The explosives you keep insisting upon are entirely unnecessary, and should therefore be purged from the theory unless specific evidence for it turns up.

            Thanks for the smear, by the way. I’m sure you’re very clever.

          • Nikko

            A toppling tree rotates around a static fulcrum. The position of the base of a toppling tree does not change. What you see in the video is freely falling debris following a parabolic path. The debris is not toppling as it is not attached at its base to its original support. In some cases the debris is 100s of feet away (horizontally) from its original position.

            So if you want your theory to have credence you need to identify the forces and mechanism which were responsible for ejecting the debris 100s of feet away from their original position? Simple toppling, as you suggest, does not do it.

          • Clark

            Fair enough. As the top section or “pile driver” descended, it imparted outward impulse to the tops of the perimeter sections first, starting the toppling. At this point the sections were still attached below – your fixed fulcrum, if you like. But the top section “pile driver” continued to descend, imparting outward impulse to the lower ends some seconds later. Hence both toppling, and overall outward motion.

            Also, it was the descent of the “pile driver” that was disconnecting the perimeter sections from the floor trusses that provided lateral support. So each perimeter section lost lateral support above before it lost it below.

          • Clark

            Nikko, you post a lot of comments to keep me on the defensive, so I’m going to refer you to this:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-649700

            The fact is, cutter charges on the frame would not produce large outward velocities of big intact sections. You’d need big bombs placed well back from the perimeter, producing large air pressure pulses to achieve that. Is that what you’re suggesting? If so, why are their shock waves not seen in the smoke and dust clouds? How did they impart the angular momentum of the characteristic toppling?

          • Nikko

            The outer walling was constructed from prefabricated sections that were welded together and staggered brick like fashion for greater strength. Destruction of the outer walling the way you describe it implies bending at the support point to the point of breakage, before it becomes free and starts flying away horizontally at great velocity. Do not forget that construction steel is pretty ductile. And as the outer walling disintegrated into small sections, it also implies breaking of all the joints between sections along their vertical dimension.

            Keep fooling yourself Clark, but If you want us to accept your theory that all this was achieved by gravity alone while the buildings collapsed at 70% of freefall speed, all you need to do is come up with the numbers that support it. So far you have done nothing of the sort. And do not forget that we have already established that in the early phases of the collapse the available energy for destruction from a mass of falling floors was absolutely tiny (of the order of a few grams of TNT equivalent).

          • Clark

            But Nikko, cutter charges could impart hardly any velocity to perimeter sections. Observation of known controlled demolitions proves this.

            Construction steel is quite ductile, though the perimeter steel of the Twin Towers was less so; using more brittle steel of higher yield strength enabled less steel to be used, reducing costs.

            “And as the outer walling disintegrated into small sections, it also implies breaking of all the joints between sections along their vertical dimension”.

            But the section I pointed out in the video was tens of metre wide and long, as were many other such sections. Why do you ask readers to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, as you propagandise for demolition that never happened?

            And no, YOU are ignoring that the kinetic energy lost through conservation of momentum became available to decouple the floor trusses from the uprights, and that the onset of collapse proceeded at much less than 70% of g. Why misrepresent the physics to less knowledgable readers?

          • Nikko

            “Construction steel is quite ductile, though the perimeter steel of the Twin Towers was less so; using more brittle steel of higher yield strength enabled less steel to be used, reducing costs.”

            You are waffling Clark, “quite ductile”, “less so”, “more brittle”, etc are meaningless terms.

            “But the section I pointed out in the video was tens of metre wide and long, as were many other such sections. Why do you ask readers to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, as you propagandise for demolition that never happened?

            Exactly, the joints along all dimension had to have been broken. Where did the energy come from?

            “And no, YOU are ignoring that the kinetic energy lost through conservation of momentum became available to decouple the floor trusses from the uprights, and that the onset of collapse proceeded at much less than 70% of g. Why misrepresent the physics to less knowledgable readers?”

            You clearly do not understand because that is exactly what I calculated – the energy released as a result of the collapse proceeding at a slower rate than freefall. We can argue about the exact speed of the collapse but it does not change the fact that during the initial phases of the collapse this available energy was tiny.

          • Clark

            “Do not forget that construction steel is pretty ductile” was YOUR statement, Nikko. It is YOU that is “waffling”.

            No, the perimeter fell in great chunks, as any fool can observe, which means that your statement “the joints along all dimension had to have been broken” is false. In any case, the available potential energy was immense, as I calculated earlier. All that needed to be broken was the floor truss connections to the uprights, requiring a trivially small proportion of that available energy.

            You are a propagandist, Nikko, and I have wasted quite enough time on your nonsense. If you think you have any substantive points, submit them to an engineering journal, and link to the discussion so we can follow its progress.

          • Nikko

            Yes, I said construction steel is pretty ductile. As a statement that is accurate if vague. You referred to properties referenced to this vague condition which you did not back up with any facts and that is why I dismissed them as meaningless waffle.

            What you calculated Clark was the kinetic energy of a falling object. As I have pointed several times before that energy does not become available unless the falling object is brought to rest. Other than that you have calculated nothing.

            It seems to me Clark that, on the one hand, your knowledge of physics and real world engineering is very rudimentary and incomplete, on the other hand, your standard of proof is very low to fit in with your limited understanding. Call me what you like but you would do yourself more credit if you would support scientifically what you are saying, rather than rely on waffle. Enough time wasted on this.

          • Clark

            “the kinetic energy of a falling object […] does not become available unless the falling object is brought to rest”.

            Well that’s very black-or-white; obviously, slowing it down will release some of the energy. Chandler’s measurement is that the roof-line of WTC1 initially fell at about 0.64 of g. Although I suspect he smoothed his graph too much, that still leaves great residual power for destruction.

            There’s nothing wrong with inequalities. If you bothered to read my comments you’d know about the more brittle, high yield-strength steel that was used in order to reduce costs.

            Beyond that, I see you have reverted to ad hominen. I remind you yet again that it’s not me that has to provide any proof, because I’m satisfied by the widely accepted null hypothesis, as I have been since I saw the bowing and buckling.

          • Nikko

            – β€œthe kinetic energy of a falling object […] does not become available unless the falling object is brought to rest”.

            You are right – sloppy language on my part. Should have written…. unless the falling object is slowed down or brought to rest.

            “Chandler’s measurement is that the roof-line of WTC1 initially fell at about 0.64 of g. Although I suspect he smoothed his graph too much, that still leaves great residual power for destruction”.

            I have calculated that the amount of energy (particularly in the early phases) is tiny but you “suspect” that it is great. You make no attempt what so ever to support scientifically your statement or make incorrect claims but expect us to accept it – that is ignorance with arrogance. No wonder nobody is buying.

          • Clark

            I made an extremely conservative calculation for available energy. Your suspicion that only a tiny proportion of it could have become available for destruction stems from some calculations based upon assumptions that I find highly questionable.

            We cannot know the proportion of energy distributed to various parts of the structure at each instant of collapse. We can set bounds upon it, and we could attempt to estimate it to increasing degrees of accuracy by use of increasingly realistic physical simulations.

            I am satisfied that the null hypothesis fits both observation and gross reckoning of load limits very reasonably. Therefore it is not my responsibility to prove that sufficient energy became available from the vast excess which we know to have been present. Rather, it is up to you to show that it was unavailable. However, as you do not even have an alternative hypothesis that is consistent with observation, attempting to disprove the null hypothesis seems like putting the cart before the horse.

            No wonder the international physics and engineering communities have not yet bought into demolition of the Twin Towers.

          • Nikko

            “I made an extremely conservative calculation for available energy. Your suspicion that only a tiny proportion of it could have become available for destruction stems from some calculations based upon assumptions that I find highly questionable.”

            You calculated the kinetic energy of a falling slab. As I wrote before that energy only becomes available in its entirety to do work if the falling mass comes to a rest or partially if it is slowed down. What you calculated is a meaningless number. The energy available for destruction is due to the difference between freefall and actual velocity. It is your understanding of physics which is highly questionable.

          • Clark

            Yes, I calculated the KE of a single floor slab falling through one storey Of course I understand that only the velocity it loses can contribute energy towards destruction. However, neither of us know how much any given floor slab was decelerated because such detail was hidden from view. Whet we DO know is that the whole falling top section carried, say, between ten and twenty times the kinetic energy of one floor slab. Even if the lowest falling floor slab was stopped completely (releasing ALL the KE I calculated), the rest of the moving section surely wouldn’t be. It would simply decouple from the moving section of vertical frame.

            That moving vertical frame would have its own destructive effects upon the floor-to-upright couplings. Or, if the upper frame fell outside the lower perimeter, the lower section of frame would be busy decoupling floor slabs from the upper, moving section of uprights.

            If you couldn’t work this out for yourself, your ability to effectively visualise WHOLE physical systems (rather than idealised parts of them) is severely limited. You’ve shown you can do maths, but the real skill is in correctly representing the physical system.

            Now, please explain to me how, in your hypothesis, explosives propel perimeter sections outwards, and why this is never seen in known controlled demolitions.

          • Nikko

            β€œYes, I calculated the KE of a single floor slab falling through one storey Of course I understand that only the velocity it loses can contribute energy towards destruction. However, neither of us know how much any given floor slab was decelerated because such detail was hidden from view.”

            I am glad we agree on the physics. As for the speed of the descent of the floor slabs, I’d say that taking it to be the same as speed of the visible outer structure would be an excellent estimate.

            β€œIf you couldn’t work this out for yourself, your ability to effectively visualise WHOLE physical systems (rather than idealised parts of them) is severely limited. You’ve shown you can do maths, but the real skill is in correctly representing the physical system.”

            I agree that representing the whole system in its entirety is what is needed. I do not follow and agree with your descriptions so here is your chance to do something convincing.
            β€œNow, please explain to me how, in your hypothesis, explosives propel perimeter sections outwards, and why this is never seen in known controlled demolitions”

            I have seen videos of demolitions where the perimeter was wrapped in retaining material to stop the lateral ejection of debris. Besides, the twin towers were unique in that their outer walling was a continuous structure from the bottom up which contributed significantly to the overall strength. A comparison is not appropriate as the demolition techniques would need to differ.

          • Clark

            “I have seen videos of demolitions where the perimeter was wrapped in retaining material to stop the lateral ejection of debris”

            Would those be concrete structures with charges placed in holes drilled into the concrete? If so, the wrapping would be to contain shrapnel; big sections aren’t going to be blown very far. If you have a video, post a link.

            If you’re attributing the outward motion of perimeter sections to explosives, you have multiple problems. Huge sections fell away as relatively undistorted pieces. However, the dust ejections through the windows proceeded down the faces of the buildings ahead of that effect…

            Now I could imagine hundreds of charges to disconnect floor trusses from the uprights, if detonated simultaneously, could push big sections of perimeter outwards, but then the tops of the perimeter sections wouldn’t have started swinging outwards before the bottom edges did, as seen. Worse, the internal collapse would become visible, and it wouldn’t be a descending wave of ejections. The internal collapse would no longer have been constrained by the perimeter; rubble and dust would have spread, depriving the collapse wave of mass and momentum.

            I suppose hundreds of charges, detonated in a descending sequence, could have disconnected the floor trusses from the uprights, but then why postulate explosives to push the perimeter sections outward? To effectively couple blast to the perimeter sections it would have to be buffered in some way, such as placing big bombs well back from the perimeter so that the air pressure shock wave pushed the perimeter sections outwards – though they still wouldn’t swing, as witnessed Or what? Lots of different strength charges on the inside of the perimeter, big ones at the top of each (predefined) section decreasing to little ones at the bottom? And how come the shock waves from the floor-truss-to-uprights charges don’t set them off as the wave of detonation for the internal collapse goes past?

            It’s all getting very elaborate, isn’t it? As I’ve said before, if I wanted to induce the behaviour witnessed, loading the top floors with lots of heavy stuff would be the best way. Explosives are worse than useless, though not as bad as thermite which is much too slow for any sequencing.

            – – – – – –

            I’m short of time at present, so briefly – gawd knows the precise sequence of events as the top sections started to fall, but very soon a growing body of material, presumably rubble and debris, was smashing its way down through successive floor assemblies, mostly heading downward but also applying some lateral pressure inwards upon the core and outwards upon the perimeter. Deprived of its lateral support (which had been supplied by the floor trusses) the perimeter succumbed to that pressure and peeled away outwards in great sections. When the falling material within the perimeter hit bottom, maximum crushing occurred and huge dust clouds were expelled.

          • Nikko

            β€œAs I’ve said before, if I wanted to induce the behavior witnessed, loading the top floors with lots of heavy stuff would be the best way”

            So you keep saying without providing a shred of back up evidence. Simple calculations show that the available energy from even 10 floors starting the collapse is negligible.

            β€œExplosives are worse than useless, though not as bad as thermite which is much too slow for any sequencing.”

            Have you considered that both could have been used.

          • Clark

            Nikko, if it looked like a load of charges, I’d say so, but it doesn’t. It looks like a sort of vertical avalanche within a cage, with the cage all falling apart outward almost as soon as the avalanche has passed. As the avalanche hits the bottom a huge cloud of dust bursts out.

            I made some energy calculations here:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-646653

            “To get a handle on the available energy I considered the highly conservative case of a single floor assembly falling through a single inter-floor gap. Using your earlier figures of 865 tonne per floor slab falling through 3.7 metre, it would carry some 31 megajoule by the time it hit the slab beneath. Using your more recent figures of 1500 tonne and 3.8 metre gap, we have nearly 56 megajoule. These translate to between about 7.5 and 13.5 kilo of TNT.”

            But the whole top was falling, so let’s multiply by, say, fifteen, for ten floor slabs, office contents, a mechanical floor and the equipment it carried, the hat truss, the perimeter and core – fifteen seems very conservative – and take a middling value of 10 kilo from our range of TNT equivalent, which gives about 150 kilo of TNT. If the top was falling at 2/3 of g, then 1/3 of that is the available energy, equivalent to about 50 kilo of TNT.

            OK, you could argue that the lowermost falling floor slab couldn’t deliver all that energy, but the uprights had to go somewhere and they were carrying all that weight. Any damage done that stops them carrying horizontal structure will just release most of its weight onto the top of the topmost intact surface – however it happens the outcome will be similar – a cascade of floor failures.

          • Nikko

            I do not quite follow your numbers but I do not dispute your estimate of 50 tons of TNT equivalent of energy released by a mass of 22,500 tons falling at 2/3 gravity compared to freefall. My calculation at 60 tons of TNT is close enough.

            What I dispute, however, is the validity of your assumption that this represents a realistic situation. First of all I do not accept that the mass of 10 floors somehow found itself at the level of the plane impact (WTC 1) to start falling as one body to initiate the collapse. Also, when I estimated the mass of one floor I took the mass of the concrete and increased it by 50% to account for the steel and equipment. Your further increase by another 50% does not seem justified but let’s not argue about detail at this stage but concentrate on the wider principles behind the collapse.

            Your theory implies pancaking of the floor slabs and as such we can calculate the increase in the collapse time due to the effect of conservation of momentum at each impact point. With WTC 1 and the plane impact point at floor 100, the collapse time is 11.7s. This compares to 8.4s for pure freefall. The freefall time is, therefore, 71% of the actual collapse time with pancaking and I take it that that is what you mean by β€œfalling at 2/3 of g”.

            So in this scenario the collapsing front was not subject to any further deceleration that would enable kinetic energy of the falling mass to be released to do external work.

          • Clark

            Nikko, from your last two paragraphs:

            “…we can calculate the increase in the collapse time due to the effect of conservation of momentum at each impact point. […] …the collapsing front was not subject to any further deceleration that would enable kinetic energy of the falling mass to be released to do external work”.

            Inelastic collisions, in conserving momentum, release kinetic energy as deformation, sound and ultimately heat. I think that kinetic energy released in this way should be counted as available for destruction and/or decoupling of floor assemblies, unless you know of some reason that it shouldn’t.

            My “2/3 of g” is just a convenient approximation I chose, based on Chandler’s measurement of the drop of WTC1’s roofline. His actual figure was 64% of g, but he’d drawn a straight line through his data points. His first four points after drop begins could be taken as a straight line in their own right, which would give an initially slower acceleration:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk

            I don’t assume pancaking in the sense of entire floor assemblies decoupling as units and/or remaining intact throughout the collapse. Neither do I assume the “pile driver” in the sense of the whole top section remaining in tact. The ejections at the collapse front look to be full of dust so I think that much rubble and debris was present, but beyond that we cannot see. It doesn’t really matter anyway; whatever form it was in by then it still had mass and velocity, and therefore destructive potential.

            Similarly with the initial descent of the top section. We can’t see it for long before it falls into the dust cloud. But if the top of the lower section initially arrested the fall of the top section’s lowest attached floor assembly, it won’t have stopped the rest of the top section, it’ll have just decoupled that assembly from the top part of the frame, and so another floor assembly would have arrived very soon. So in considering initiation of a cascade of floor failures, the obvious figures to work with pertain to the whole top section, which can’t really do anything but fall.

          • Nikko

            You are right that in inelastic collisions kinetic energy is released as deformations, however, this energy is absorbed internally and not available to do external work.

            Whether you call it pancaking or by some other term, your theory involves floors colliding and, therefore, there is no getting away that this slows the rate of fall. An object falling at 2/3 of g would reach the ground at 10.2s compared to pancaking floors at 11.7s. So if you are working with floors colliding with each other, then assuming that they were falling at 2/3 of g is incorrect and meaningless.

          • Clark

            “You are right that in inelastic collisions kinetic energy is released as deformations, however, this energy is absorbed internally and not available to do external work”

            Well we’re talking about floor slabs connected to the frame. Deformation of floor slabs, or deformation of their connections to the frame, if it goes far enough, seems to me like the same thing as breaking them, and it looks like enough kinetic energy is dissipated to break them.

            I agree that conservation of momentum is bound to decrease the acceleration of the collapse front. But I’m not “assuming” 2/3 of g. That’s roughly Chandler’s measurement for the first couple of seconds of descent of the roofline of WTC1, though as I said, the first second of his data looks slower than that to me, and I can’t see any justification for assuming constant acceleration. Lower acceleration implies even more energy available for destruction.

          • Clark

            Sorry, I’d missed your point here when I replied:

            “An object falling at 2/3 of g would reach the ground at 10.2s compared to pancaking floors at 11.7s. So if you are working with floors colliding with each other, then assuming that they were falling at 2/3 of g is incorrect and meaningless”

            I’d sort of answered serendipitously anyway; Chandler’s tracking measurements only covered the first two or three seconds. We don’t have accurate overall collapse times. It also must be remembered that the debris pile was quite high reducing the overall drop for some of the material, and we don’t have an exact figure for the fracture height – in fact, there probably isn’t one, failure having occurred at a range of heights about the damaged zones.

          • Nikko

            β€œβ€¦β€¦β€¦and it looks like enough kinetic energy is dissipated to break them.”

            Dream on. We have just established that a falling rate of 2/3 of g is impossible with a colliding scenario because it actually needs an input of external energy.

            Sorry to say so Clark, but you are waffling again. If you are not assuming 2/3 of g, then what are you assuming? After the initial split second, Chandler’s graph clearly shows constant acceleration throughout the duration of the 3 second measurement.

            Under your colliding scenario, during the first 3 seconds, the rate of fall would change from an initial 9.8 m/s2 to 4.1 m/s2. Had that been the case it would be clearly visible on Chandler’s graph. Another proof that colliding floor collapse could not have happened and did not happen.

  • RobG

    This comment thread gives me a headache whenever I dip into it.

    You can argue forever about what actually happened on 9/11 with regard to the physics (and we will probably never know during our lifetimes). You have to look at the political side of things if you want to figure out 9/11 (I believe, for instance, that I mentioned the anthrax attacks a few months back).

    When it comes to politics, and all that’s happened since (we now live – again for an instance – in almost complete police states) it’s almost certain that 9/11 was an inside job.

    I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise?

    • Clark

      Rob, just the fact that they blamed al Qaeda makes 9/11 an almost inside job, but that was just the cover story. The redacted pages and the blocked civil suits in the UK all implicate Saudi Arabia, which is the source of al Qaeda and a key US ally. Then Springmann’s revelations show that Saudis much like and possibly including the hijackers were infiltrated onto US soil by the CIA, and multiple investigations into them were blocked from on high. The US and NATO continue to exploit such extremists – Libya, Syria etc.

      The anthrax attacks were clearly false-flag. The extent to which 9/11 itself was false flag or just convenient is why proper investigation is needed.

      And that’s my point. The physics of the Twin Tower collapses is all long since done – flimsy construction, poor fire protection, serious damage, extensive fire, structural failure, gravity. But the “Truth Movement” is completely dominated by demolition theorists, who gang up to bad-mouth and bully any who have the sense to see it. They police the entire Truth Movement and keep it utterly at odds with the international academic and engineering communities. They attack the reputations of prominent critics of government and campaigners for peace such as Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman. This single issue campaign discredits the movement and serves as the major obstacle to proper investigation.

      • Clark

        Looking at many of the comments you might think that NIST were public enemy number one. A bunch of publicly funded engineers, for God’s sake. OK, they played down the weaknesses of the Twin Towers, but no way are they the major culprits they’re made out to be. Demolition is a crazy diversion that gets everyone shooting at the wrong targets. It’s a Grade A distraction. Just look at who it’s used against – Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Michio Kaku, Julian Assange… With so much promotion from Right-wing US Talk Radio Tea Party sites, and a “friendly fire” casualty list like that, you’d think people would begin to suspect, but apparently not…

      • Nikko

        “And that’s my point. The physics of the Twin Tower collapses is all long since done……”

        The reality is that there is more to the physics than you realise.

          • Nikko

            I know several engineers here and abroad who would not agree with you. Which international communities would not agree with me?

          • Clark

            So far as I know, no university, nor any scientific or engineering body in the world has declared that the fall of the Twin Towers required explosives, unless we include A&E9/11 Truth. That includes universities of countries politically opposed to the United States. Conversely, the University of Edinburgh has stood by a professor who has said the Twin Towers could have fallen from fire alone, without the aircraft impact damage.

          • Clark

            Not Russia, nor China. Not even Iran, Saudi Arabia or Cuba. The Saudi press has said it was demolition, but not Saudi physicists or engineers.

          • Nikko

            You are back tracking Clark. What scientific and engineering communities came up specifically in support of the official narrative.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I feel quite confident in saying that the great majority of engineers and physicists do not think in terms of an “official” explanation, and that if called upon to support one a fair proportion would look for means of rebellion just on principle. The idea is rather quaint.

            Indeed, there is no “official” model of the collapse sequences beyond initiation. NIST left the matter there, merely referencing Bazant’s early paper which purports to show that the gravitational potential energy greatly exceeds energy required for complete destruction, even through the path of greatest resistance.

            I feel equally confident that if there was a glaring deficiency of energy as you claim, it would be a matter of hot debate within those communities. It is not a obscure part of science, so the available participant base would be very large indeed; tens of millions at minimum, and thus impossible to suppress.

      • Clark

        John Goss, please define “proper engineers and architects”.

        The vast majority of architects and engineers all over the world do not support demolition of the Twin Towers. Even many of A&E9/11 Truth voice concern primarily over the collapse of Building 7 and say nothing about the Twin Towers. A&E9/11 Truth make up a small fraction of one percent of architects and engineers worldwide.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark January 15, 2017 at 21:02
    ‘– β€œand looks out, looks one way and sees both Towers STANDING; looks back and one has collapsed”.

    What? You mean he was looking the wrong way, didn’t hear the collapse and was gawping at WTC1 for so long he failed to notice the collapse of WTC2? Pull the other one; it’s got bells on.’

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062308_dead_bodies.htm
    ‘…Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.

    “When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor,” said Jennings.

    “The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.

    “I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down – all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in “total ruins”….’

    So, Jennings: ‘..there was an explosion and the landing gave way..’
    You: There was no exploosion.

    Jennings: ‘…”The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.,,’
    You: ‘There was no explosion’ (so what blew Jennings and Hess back?)
    You: WTC 2 had already fallen before the stairs ‘collapsed’ (directly contradicting Jennings, who was actually there, unlike you).

    But you still won’t take it in; Jennings is a liar, Jennings memory was playing tricks; Jennings can’t be believed because he would have been in shock; but Clark and his trusty crystal ball KNOWS what happened. Evidence? Who needs evidence, when they have a trusty crystal ball and a fertile imagination?

    • Clark

      Ah, so you had to go to Alex Jones’ Right-wing Tea Party site PrisonPlanet to find that edit did you? What a surprise! Are YOU a Right-winger, Paul?

      Yes, as I said before, Jennings’ testimony is contradictory, eg “the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up” versus “when the explosion happened it blew us back”. Likewise, his spontaneous account, “look one way, the building was there, look the other and the building was gone” versus his reply when asked if both the Twin Towers were still standing.

      There’d be no point murdering a man who keeps contradicting himself. Just point to his other testimony; much cooler.

      • Paul Barbara

        No, I didn’t have to go to Alex Jones site; I went there because you refuse to comprehend what was in the video I linked to, so I figured if I could find a transcript you would have less excuse to misunderstand it.
        But one thing I should warn you about – never go swimming! You wriggle and squirm so much, and large fish would automatically think you were a worm…

        And by the way, from your comments below, it seems you still purport to believe that the aircraft were hijacked; pitiful, really.

        • Clark

          Right, here’s the video of Jennings’ statement:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA

          And here’s the relevant piece of his testimony, after what Jennings described as an explosion and the sixth floor landing giving way beneath him:

          “After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark. It was dark, and it was very, very hot. Very hot. Um, I asked Mr Hess to test the ‘phones, as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me; I saw er, police cars, on fire, buses on fire, ah I looked one way [looking to his left], the building was there, I looked the other way [nodding to his right right] it was gone”.

          9/11 2001 was a bright, sunny day. The power had failed and the lights had gone out – probably as the sixth floor landing was destroyed (Jennings is slightly vague but this seems to be his meaning), but it was the dust clouds from the collapses that reduced the daylight. Jennings couldn’t see out until he broke the windows, so presumably dust had obscured the windows. Jennings said there were buses and cars on fire. It sounds very much as if one collapse had occurred by then. Jennings said it was very, very hot, so presumably WTC7 was on fire by then. From WTC7, looking left is consistent with looking at WTC1, and Jennings looked left as he said “the building was there”. He nodded right as he said “I looked the other way it was gone“, consistent with looking toward WTC2.

          His contiguous account ends there. Later, he recounts talking to firefighters and being on the north side of WTC7, from which neither of the Twin Towers could have been seen. He says they ran away twice as each Tower fell, but he also said he found that out later and didn’t know what was going on at the time.

          He does describe the collapse of the sixth floor landing as an explosion, and of being blown back, but he recounts conversation with Hess so he wasn’t deafened. I recounted many pages back how I accidentally blew up a lead-acid battery on charge; I was deaf for about half an hour. Also, Jennings was not hit by shrapnel. It seems unlikely that he was near the detonation of a demolition charge.

          Jennings’ account is rather vague and fragmentary, as is usual from people in such traumatic circumstances. I certainly don’t think he was lying. But piecing it all together, I feel pretty sure that the collapse of the sixth-floor landing seemed like an explosion, but was actually caused when WTC2 collapsed, also knocking out the electrical supply.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 16, 2017 at 01:48
            There you go again – you admit he said he ‘looked one way and the building was there, looked the other way and it was gone’; note, ‘it’, ‘the building’; not ‘the other building’. SO both Towers were standing when the floors exploded.
            You say he wasn’t injured by shrapnel – how do you know? Remember, after the fire crew led him out of WTC 7, he couldn’t walk, and was told to crawl, but to get away from WTC 7.
            Now it was dark on the 8th floor (there was no mention of it being dark or hot when they first got up to the 8th floor, when he saw steaming cups of coffee on the table. So it is reasonable to suppose that heat and dust from explosions in WTC 7 (he experienced the stairs exploding, but I believe it reasonable that other explosions occurred in WTC 7, which would cause heat and dust.
            BUT, principally, ‘he looked one way and THE building was there; looked the other way and IT was gone’ means the building. WTC 2, was still standing AFTER the stairs exploded. He is also on record as saying BOTH TOWERS WERE STANDING when they made it back to the 8th floor.
            Neither of these statements contradicts each other, that he ‘looked one way’ and the building was there, looked the other way and IT was gone’, and his statement that both Towers were still standing.
            It’s SOOO simple; you have accepted he has said both things, but you still keep on that the collapse of WTC 2 caused the stairs to collapse.
            Sure, when you were deafened temporarily by the exploding gases from the battery, you were right next to the blast; Jennings was not.
            You may well ‘..I feel pretty sure that the collapse of the sixth-floor landing seemed like an explosion, but was actually caused when WTC2 collapsed, also knocking out the electrical supply.’, but your ‘feeling’ does not trump Jenning’s first hand testimony.

          • Clark

            “You say he wasn’t injured by shrapnel – how do you know? Remember, after the fire crew led him out of WTC 7, he couldn’t walk”

            Well here he is, apparently about the time the exclusion zone around WTC7 was set up. He can hear and walk, he isn’t bandaged and his suit and glasses seem to be intact:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XOK-r80nr8

            He does, however, seem stressed and traumatised. He said he thought he wouldn’t survive. So I wouldn’t be surprised if his memories of the event were a bit jumbled.

        • Clark

          Barry Jennings accounts are really quite confused. At 1:12 in this video:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCUu8ctLFuU

          he said that he wanted to get out of Building 7 as fast as he could, and jumped down flights of stairs in getting to the sixth floor. If neither Tower had fallen, why was he so frightened at that point, and why was he using the stairs rather than the freight elevator he’d used before? The earliest explosion he mentions refers to the destruction of the landing on the sixth floor, so presumably it wasn’t explosions that had scared him. According to NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 289 (referenced in the video linked above), Jennings and Hess had gone to use the freight elevator but the power failed, and that that was when WTC2 fell, the destruction of the staircase occurring when WTC1 fell. This scenario seems to make the most sense, since it explains why Jennings wasn’t using the elevator and why he was scared, and includes enough time for fire to have made WTC7 “very, very hot” by the time Jennings got back up to the eighth floor.

          I doubt that anything definite can be gained from such confused and contradictory accounts, but for the same reason it seems unlikely that he was murdered, especially while under the supervision of medical staff.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 16, 2017 at 04:53
            NIST’s account isn’t worth a plugged nickle; their job was to cover up the true causes of collapse.
            Barry Jenning’s first-hand account is worth immeasurably more than your ‘suppositions’.
            ‘…but for the same reason it seems unlikely that he was murdered, especially while under the supervision of medical staff.’
            Search about the very strange and convenient death of General Smedley Butler in hospital; and of Joan River’s death in a bizarre ‘accident’ in totally illegal circumstances, within two months of saying Michelle Obama was a ‘Tranny’. Her daughter got a reputed 8-figure out-of-court settlement from the clinic.
            And look at Princess Di, and her treatment by the French medics!
            I’m sure you have heard about doctors assisting in torture sessions (even joining in), so it is not too OTT to speculate that yes, some doctors and medical staff will murder their patients.
            There is no evidence they did in the case of Jennings, but it would have been hugely inconvenient for Jenning’s testimony to surface after the final NIST Report: stairs exploding while Towers still up, and walking over dead bodies.

          • Kempe

            Jennings entered WTC 7 shortly after it had been evacuated which would’ve been after 0937. The South Tower collapsed at 0959. There can’t be any doubt that the “explosion” Jennings thought he experienced was the South Tower collapsing and that it was this that damaged WTC 7. WTC 7 didn’t collapse for another 5 hours or so which makes the idea of explosive demolitions taking place then even more ludicrous. Jennings has also claimed to have seen the wrecked lobby but only to have experienced the sensation of stepping over dead bodies. The video footage of the lobby we’ve already had a link to show the lobby wrecked but no sign of any bodies.

          • Clark

            Paul, you seem very much to work backwards from conclusions you have predetermined. The world is highly complex; it doesn’t all fall neatly into good people saying true things and bad people doing evil, but, I’m sorry to say, this good-versus-evil model seems to be how you see things. No meaningful discussion is possible with you unless you can maintain open-mindedness.

            I don’t take any account at face value. I give credence to NIST’s interpretation of Jennings’ account because (1) something must have scared him and (2) he used the stairs instead of the elevator he rode up in.

            Now, you can come up with “maybe this and maybe that” which “explains” Jennings’ fear and use of the stairs in a manner consistent with your predetermined conclusions, but I will not be interested. The point of my existence is not to gratify your personal desire to impose your beliefs upon others; I was subjected to far too much of that during my religious upbringing.

  • Clark

    John Goss, between us, we really seem to have hit a nerve. The demolition theorists seem to want to keep attention well away from Susan Lindauer’s first-hand testimony about CIA foreknowledge. That testimony is absolutely damming to the CIA. They knew the attacks were coming; knew they would involve hijacking commercial flights, and knew that the World Trade Center would be a target.

    Yet the CIA did nothing. They put no precautions in place, and when those aircraft were known to be hijacked they did nothing to evacuate the WTC site.

    • Clark

      So, Susan Lindauer speaks out – who should we go after? Spooks or engineers?

      John, you’ve worked with engineers all your life. A really evil bunch, were they?

        • Clark

          Bastard engineers, with all their calculations and log tables, diagrams and shit. I don’t understand all that stuff. Bastard college lecturers and professors with all their books and long words I don’t understand. Physicists, architects – well paid egg-heads. Worthless, the lot of ’em.

          THESE are the real traitors, along with firefighters and cops. Lock’em all up; they can consider themselves lucky they’re not shot. Billionaire Trump and loudmouth Alex Jones are my heroes.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark January 15, 2017 at 23:22

      ‘…knew they would involve hijacking commercial flights,…’

      Evidence? They knew that hijackers would be BLAMED. they knew that very well, because they had carefully set up the false ‘Red Herring’ trails, in conjunction with their ‘allrged hijackers’ (it is really worthwhile to watch ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg , to see the ridiculous lengths the ‘alleged hijackers’ went to to make sure their behaviour was so outrageous that they would definitely be noticed (the last thing genuine terrorists would do before an operation).

      It is well worth watching, even if you have watched it many times before.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark January 15, 2017 at 23:22

      ‘…knew they would involve hijacking commercial flights,…’

      Evidence? They knew that hijackers would be BLAMED. they knew that very well, because they had carefully set up the false ‘Red Herring’ trails, in conjunction with their ‘alleged hijackers’ (it is really worthwhile to watch ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg , to see the ridiculous lengths the ‘alleged hijackers’ went to to make sure their behaviour was so outrageous that they would definitely be noticed (the last thing genuine terrorists would do before an operation).

      It is well worth watching, even if you have watched it many times before.

  • Thomas Potter

    ╦─╦╔╗╦─╔╗╔╗╔╦╗╔╗
    ║║║╠─║─║─║║║║║╠
    β•šβ•©β•β•šβ•β•šβ•β•šβ•β•šβ•β•©β”€β•©β•šβ•

    Either by design or happenstance many of the participants of this forum suffer from ODD (Obsessive Debunking Disorder).

    Wouldn’t it be lovely, wouldn’t it be great, if all the people who frequent here were discussing the evidence each and everyone has read from the ONLY scientific forensic study and 500 page report compiled by the ONLY person to bring this evidence to a court of law. πŸ™‚

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/01/9-11-truthers-part.html

    • Node

      @Thomas Potter

      Why not give us something to get our teeth into? You’re the Dr Judy Woods expert – choose a facet of her work which you think is being ignored by the Truth movement, present it here and answer any questions arising. I for one will give you a fair hearing.

      • Node

        That’d be a …
        ╦─╦╔╗╦─╦
        β•‘β•‘β•‘β•‘β•‘β•‘β•‘β•‘
        β•šβ•©β•β•šβ•β•šβ•©β•
        πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

  • Thomas Potter

    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–’β–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–“β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–’β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–’β–’β–“β–“β–’β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–’β–’β–’β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–“β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–“β–’β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–’β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–“β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–“β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–‘β–“β–“β–’β–‘β–“β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–’β–‘β–’β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ
    β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ

    Discussing the evidence contained in Dr. Judy Wood’s book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? is similar to shaking Holy ✝ Water on Satan’s Little Helpers. πŸ’€ Why? Because they spring out of their dark black holes in the woodwork like hungry gnawing rats eager to consume the light of truth.

      • Thomas Potter

        Is your friend’s publication the most important book of the 21st Century as WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

        This download is the Foreword and book review of “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 – 2006 (35 years), plus the Author’s Preface.

        http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf

        https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/01/9-11-truthers-part.html

        Dr. James Fetzer writes in response to the above article:

        (1) Far from ignoring Judy Wood’s work, I promoted it by featuring her on my radio shows fifteen times. I gave her an unprecedented 3 hours to speak at the Madison 9/11 Truth Conference in 2007 and invited her to speak again at The Vancouver Hearings in 2012. She did not even bother to respond.

        (2) Scientific reasoning requires taking into account new evidence and alternative hypotheses, but Judy Wood has ignored the findings of the US Geological Survey, which disclosed the presence of elements that, in quantity and correlation, are indicative of the use of nuclear devices.

        (3) Those that appear to have been used were mini or micro nukes, which have a dialable radius and can be directed (in this case, upward). I am unaware of any aspect of the evidence that DEWs can explain that mini nukes cannot. Interestingly, by her definition, mini and micro nukes are DEWs.

        (4) Neither Judy Wood and DEWs nor A&E911 are willing to talk about who was responsible and why. That is a telling sign. Check out AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016), moonrockbooks.com. For limited hangouts, the situation is clear cut.

        James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
        McKnight Professor Emeritus
        University of Minnesota Duluth
        http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

        And now the truth for perceptive minds:

        The facts of Dr. Fetzer’s statement #1 refute Dr. Fetzer’s statement #2. That is, Dr. Wood presented the USGS data at Dr. Fetzer’s β€œconference” in 2007. Wasn’t Dr. Fetzer paying attention? Why hold a conference if the information presented is ignored by the host – unless it is to cover up that very information?

        The USGS data is also presented in Dr. Wood’s book. So why is it that Dr. Fetzer is trying to convince the public that a) it is β€œnew” information and b) that Dr. Wood has not addressed this information? People with integrity would like to know. Item #3 on Dr. Fetzer’s list is an attempt to re-frame Dr. Wood’s work into something it is not. Dr. Wood presents evidence; she does not present a theory about a β€œDEW weapon” or any other weapon. Dr. Wood presents evidence. She does not promote a theory to β€œexplain” a theory. Dr. Wood presents evidence and evidence cannot be wrong.

        Over the years, Dr. Fetzer has repeatedly attempted to muddle up statements made by Dr Wood in her book and elsewhere. Dr Fetzer often β€œshows up” when popular postings are made about this research (look at the volume of comments he made in a review of the book on Amazon). One can see how this β€œmuddle-up” and deliberate misdirection activity has evolved since 2005

        Are there still discerning readers who can judge when they are being deliberately mislead?

        https://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg

    • lysias

      I hope Trump calls for a new investigation of the murder of JFK. What better way to discredit the CIA?

      After the job is done with the JFK assassination, then there can be a new investigation of 9/11.

      • John Goss

        While they are both interrelated Lysias I would prefer the 9/11 inquiry first for the simple reason that many people are still alive who lost loved ones and they are looking for closure. Not so many now connected with the Kennedy assassination. But they both need investigating.

        • lysias

          One reason for putting the JFK case first is the way the CIA, through Senator Schumer, recently threatened Trump with the fate of JFK.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ lysias January 17, 2017 at 20:33

        I wouldn’t hold your breath. I doubt if Trump fancies ‘sleeping with the fishes’.
        Two good books about the whole slew of suspicious deaths, ‘suicides’, and murders of people who had inconvenient information about the JFK assassination: ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’ by Wayne and Belzer; also ‘Me & Lee’ by LHO’s fiancee, Judyth Vary Baker (and linked book ‘Dr. Mary’s Monkey’ by Edward Haslam).
        Also a six-part documentary (all 6 parts in one here): ‘Evidence of Revision (The assassination of America)’:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHb5X3fFhPw

        and an interview with James Files: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr4vgHsmNEk

  • Paul Barbara

    @ 28 Jan, 2010 in War in Iraq by craig
    ‘…The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building…’

    BUT: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
    ‘Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
    Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
    Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:…’

    ‘…Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:
    β€œThe building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen doorβ€”this intense gridβ€”and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”
    Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

    ‘…As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense….’

    BUT: Barry Jennings said the staircase in WTC 7 exploded whilst bothe Towers were still standing, so no kinetic energy from the collapsing Towers was available to explode the staircase.

    • Clark

      “The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.

      Yes, both of the Twin Towers did survive the impacts without collapsing, though not for long enough.

      “…The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building…”

      Craig’s first sentence was correct and the impacts did extensive damage to the entire structures. However, his imagination in his second sentence was wrong.

      Benedict’s law: – “Nature always sides with the hidden flaw”.

      Law of revelation – “The hidden flaw never remains hidden”.

      Murphy’s Law Complete, Bloch 1985.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark January 18, 2017 at 13:12
        ‘….Yes, both of the Twin Towers did survive the impacts without collapsing, though not for long enough.

        – β€œβ€¦The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining { & nor do you} they would bring down the building…”
        So your and Craig’s IMAGINATIONS trump the scientific calculations…
        ‘….Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11….’
        He (and the fiefighters and First Responders) had every right to be confidant the Towers would not collapse, because they didn’t have a clue the WTC was rigged with explosives and nano-thermate.

        ‘…Craig’s first sentence was correct and the impacts did extensive damage to the entire structures. However, his imagination in his second sentence was wrong….’
        Obviously wrong again. The ‘alleged plane impacts’ did not do damage to the entire structure. That idea is frankly laughable.

        β€˜…..Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
        Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing…..’

        Anyhow, at least, after God knows how many attempts on my part, you EVENTUALLY accept Jenning’s said the Towers were still standing, and that the staircase exploded, and blew them backwards, though now you fall back on ‘he must have been mistaken/confused’.

        • Clark

          “Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers…”

          No. No such tests were carried out. It was a theoretical calculation. It apparently showed that a 707 would penetrate the perimeter, wings and all, and there’d be a terrible fire.

          Grief, the Twin Towers were cheap, like the thousands of shock absorbers in place of cross-bracing so they wouldn’t sway in the wind too much. Every bit of their design was about saving costs. There’s no way they’d have trashed a 707 just to test the design.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 18, 2017 at 17:16
            – β€œAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers…”

            ‘No. No such tests were carried out. It was a theoretical calculation. It apparently showed that a 707 would penetrate the perimeter, wings and all, and there’d be a terrible fire.

            Grief, the Twin Towers were cheap, like the thousands of shock absorbers in place of cross-bracing so they wouldn’t sway in the wind too much. Every bit of their design was about saving costs. There’s no way they’d have trashed a 707 just to test the design.’

            How do you know no such tests were carried out? Oh, I see, your trusty ‘crystal ball’ again.

            ‘…There’s no way they’d have trashed a 707 just to test the design.’…’
            But who claimed they did? There are other ways they can test the designs. But You have zero evidence – just a ‘gut feeling’ and of course your trusty crystal ball (and your preconceived notion that the WTC buildings weren’t rigged for controlled demolition – so any evidence that would seem to point to controlled demolition must be wrong, or disinformation, or confusion in the minds of the witnesses, no matter how many say there were multiple EXPLOSIONS in the WTC buildings).
            Blimey, remind me – are we playing badminton or tennis?

          • Clark

            “But who claimed they did [trash a 707]?”

            The A&E9/11Bullshit article says “Impact test”. That’s a test involving an impact, and no such impact test is recorded anywhere but on that A&E9/11Bullshit page. There were safety concerns when the Towers were proposed because of the previously untried design, so the PR people went to great lengths to (falsely) convince the public of the Towers’ safety. That’s why the designers did that theoretical study, which we’ve all already heard of and which was widely publicised. If they’d really crashed a 707, they would have released films and had hundreds of witnesses. Nothing, zilch, nada except that relatively recent A&E9/11Bullshit page. A&E9/11Bullshit simply made it up.

          • Clark

            And, YET AGAIN, I DO NOT DENY EXPLOSIONS. That’s bold AND capitals, if that doesn’t get through to you there’s no stronger dose. But explosions dotted throughout the day can’t put a building into free-fall – the explosions all have to happen within a split second to do that.

            There were all sorts of things blowing up due to all the FIRE. There were load of explosions, and loads of testimony of explosions. Even Barry Jennings said he though the explosions were cars blowing up because they were on fire.

        • Clark

          Paul Barbara January 18, 15:28:

          “The β€˜alleged plane impacts’ did not do damage to the entire structure. That idea is frankly laughable”

          Yes, they warped both entire structures. Doors were jammed in their frames and firefighters had to break them open. That’s apart from the damage in the ground floor lobbies which I know you attribute to bombs or demolition charges.

          And no the aircraft didn’t bring the buildings down; not directly. The aircraft caused extensive damage and fire, which apparently caused structural failure at the damaged zones. That caused the top parts of the building to fall on the lower parts, resulting in total destruction.

    • Clark

      And yes, Barry Jennings did say that, but all timelines that have Jennings observing both Towers still standing after the sixth floor landing collapsed are untenable, and his other observations of darkness, obscured windows and burning cars and buses contradict it. Jennings probably got confused, which is understandable.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark January 18, 2017 at 13:39
        ‘And yes, Barry Jennings did say that, but all timelines that have Jennings observing both Towers still standing after the sixth floor landing collapsed are untenable, and his other observations of darkness, obscured windows and burning cars and buses contradict it. Jennings probably got confused, which is understandable.’

        And then you previously accused me of your behaviour:
        @ Clark January 17, 2017 at 06:30
        ‘Paul, you seem very much to work backwards from conclusions you have predetermined. The world is highly complex; it doesn’t all fall neatly into good people saying true things and bad people doing evil, but, I’m sorry to say, this good-versus-evil model seems to be how you see things. No meaningful discussion is possible with you unless you can maintain open-mindedness…..’

        That is precisely what you are doing – you do not believe Jenning’s ACCOUNT because it doesn’t fit your idea explosives and nano-thermate were used in WTC’s 1,2 and 7.

        As for NIST’s ‘computer simulation’ of how WTC came down, is obviously ridiculously flawed, because they have the left-hand side (looking at a screen) collapsing in a way thet the real WTC 7 did not do – it came down essentially in good physical shape.
        We have all seen the collapse many times; it is totally different from their rigged ‘computer simulation’, whilst understandably they refuse to disclose the input to their ‘simulation’ so it can be tested by others.

        • Clark

          “you do not believe Jenning’s ACCOUNT because it doesn’t fit your idea explosives and nano-thermate were used in WTC’s 1,2 and 7”

          No, the reason I don’t accept Jennings’ account is that it contradicts ITSELF. He says the Towers were still standing, but that it had gone dark in WTC7 (the dust cloud), that he had to break the windows out before he could see (dust on the windows), and that loads of cars and buses were on fire. That’s all consistent with conditions AFTER at least one collapse, and INCONSISTENT with conditions before either collapse.

          I said absolutely nothing about NIST’s computer simulation which I won’t trust until they release the data so that independent researchers can verify it. But that does not alter the fact that their interpretation of Jennings testimony makes more sense than what Jennings said in assorted interviews.

          It’s YOU that’s cobbling his account. You have him zooming around like Superman, up and down WTC7’s elevators twice making enquiries in between, making multiple phone calls, descending seventeen flights of stairs in the dark, dragging himself back from the fall, reclimbing to floor eight and breaking windows out all before WTC2 fell, and then doing nothing for the next three hours without even noticing the fall of WTC1.

    • Clark

      Paul, you should verify your sources. The A&E9/11Truth article you linked to claims:

      “Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707 […]. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.

      I’d never heard of this “impact test” and was pretty sure it never happened, so I followed the link to the source. “AE911Truth Staff” have distorted the quotes at HistoryCommons:

      http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling

      It was not an “impact test”, but the same old theoretical study we’ve all heard of before, and of which John Skilling said:

      “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed”

      So, you’ve repeated and amplified bullshit.

      John Goss, note that John Skilling, one of the two structural engineers who designed the Trade Center, said; “all the fuel would dump into the building”. So Skilling had presumably calculated that the wings, which contain the fuel tanks, would penetrate the perimeter.

      • Paul Barbara

        ‘… and that loads of cars and buses were on fire. That’s all consistent with conditions AFTER at least one collapse, and INCONSISTENT with conditions before either collapse….’
        But did he say the cars and buses were burning BEFORE the collapse, which happened an extremely short time after he broke the window out? I believe you will not find that is the case; but even if it was, that still does not trump his specifically saying both Towers were standing when he broke the window out.
        And you should remember that over 100 First Responders (I believe 118) heard EXPLOSIONS both before and during the Towers’ collapses (and indeed, Barry Jennings tells us there were explosions in WTC 7 BEFORE the Towers collapsed.

        ‘….and then doing nothing for the next three hours without even noticing the fall of WTC1….’
        On the contrary, he did the only thing he could do – tried to get the First Responders to rescue them, as they had no way to get out. Apparently the First Responders had a great deal of trouble locating them, that’s why they were stuck in WTC 7 for so long. And of course, you wandered previously what had spooked them – well, it was categoric phone calls to get the hell out, smartish.
        But you should know this, surely?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark January 18, 2017 at 15:57

        ‘…– β€œAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707 […]. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.

        I’d never heard of this β€œimpact test” and was pretty sure it never happened, so I followed the link to the source. β€œAE911Truth Staff” have distorted the quotes at HistoryCommons:…

        Have A&E distorted the quotes at History Commons? Show me where.

        ‘…– β€œAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707 […]. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”….’

        Comprende? ‘…β€œAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers….’
        The impact tests occurred ‘..during the design of the Twin Towers…’, that is in the late 1960’s or extremely early ’70’s.
        A misunderstanding on your part, perhaps? The ‘impact tests’ did not happen in ’82, or even in ’93, but at the design stage of the Towers.

          • Clark

            Follow the damn link A&E9/11TruthBullshit cite for the source of the “impact test” – it says no such thing; A&E9/11 damn well made it up!

            Look, what’s the difference, Paul? A&E9/11 can write that there were impact tests, and I can write here that the Moon is made of green cheese, like this:

            The Moon is made of green cheese.

            but that doesn’t mean it is, and I hope you don’t start believing it just because it appears on a web page!

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 18, 2017 at 19:04
            What link? You didn’t give one.
            The ‘impact Tests’ occurred, it is claimed, in 1964, so how can they link to an 80’s or 9o’s occurrence?
            A&E don’t make stuff up, they use Science, and above all TRUTH.

        • Kempe

          History Commons refer to paper exercises, an analysis, which was claimed to have been done although none of the original calculations can be found. The only people referring to an actual physical test are AE911.

          Such a test would have been a monumental undertaking and would certainly have been filmed and extensively photographed so where is the evidence? Witnesses? Photos? Film?

          AE911 DO make stuff up, they do it all the time, and I think they’ve overstepped the mark this time though.

          • Clark

            They’ve still got articles up implying, suggesting, or outright claiming that the collapses of the Twin Towers broke physical law unless explosives were used. There are links to Chandlers “Downward Acceleration”. I think that’s where John Goss gets it from. It’s couched as if it applies to the Twin Towers, but it “proves” that no structure that has ever stood can accelerate into collapse under its own weight. Tell that to my shed. And before a truther shouts “steel, steel”, the argument makes no reference to material.

          • Clark

            Paul Barbara, January 18, 22:41, you asked – <em"What link? You didn’t give one".

            OK. In your comment of January 18, 11:28 above:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-650185

            …you linked to A&E9/11″Truth”:

            http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

            …which claims:

            “Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”

            …and that link in the claim points here:

            http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling

            But nothing on that page supports the claim made of an “impact test”. It documents various emergency drills and engineers’ calculations. The closest I can get is a “computer simulation” in 1964, according to Guy Tozzoli, a former World Trade Center director, but in 1964 computer simulations were not what they are today:

            Earlier in his testimony, Tozzoli described a computer simulation performed back when the towers were still under construction. The simulation used a 707, the largest jet at the time, flying at 220 mph into one of the towers, he said.

            – “The computer said it would blow out the structural steel supports along one side of the building completely to seven floors, and naturally there would be a large loss of life on those seven floors because of the explosion,” Tozzoli testified.

            – “However, the structure of the building would permit the 50 floors or whatever it is above to remain and not topple because the loans would distribute themselves around the other three walls and then eventually be assimilated in the floors below.”

            “Loans” should presumably read “loads”; possibly Freudian typesetting. History Commons got that from here:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20020412234558/http:/www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nydril122460832nov12.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

            So A&E9/11TruthStretchers-R-Us.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 19, 2017 at 01:48
            Right: first, thanks for the links. Now the A&E article states (in part):
            ‘…Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
            Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:

            The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
            The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds…………etc.’

            They are clearly not the same thing, and A&E don’t say they are.
            They don’t give a link to the 1964 tests, or explain what they amounted to.
            You could of course ask them for more information – it is you, after all, who are ‘finding fault’ with their article.
            So, they are referring to 1964 tests first, then go on to other calculations, to which they give the link.
            No sleight of hand, no intent to deceive, just a superficial reading and understanding of their article by you (and apparently Kempe, who claims, without any evidence – who needs evidence when we have Kempe’s word for it? – that ‘AE911 DO make stuff up, they do it all the time, and I think they’ve overstepped the mark this time though.’

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 19, 2017 at 01:48
            Re ‘…– β€œHowever, the structure of the building would permit the 50 floors or whatever it is above to remain and not topple because the loans would distribute themselves around the other three walls and then eventually be assimilated in the floors below.”

            Notice, it would destroy the steel supports of ONE WALL; no suggestion it would affect the interior columns; obviously a typo re ‘loans’; if all typos were ‘Freudian slips’, I don’t know what that says about commenters on here, including myself….

          • Clark

            Paul, the A&E9/11 article says “impact test” and cites a source, but the source does not say “impact test”.

            I don’t assume A&E9/11 intended to deceive. I expect they’re just like demolition theorists on this thread; if some snippet seems to support their assertions, they seize upon it, magnify it, and publicise it. It’s overzealousness.

            But what can’t be forgiven is that they don’t correct and retract. Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” paper is blatantly wrong. It should be replaced with a very clear statement of retraction, so that everyone who follows the link sees the retraction instead of the original. Instead A&E9/11 have just left it sitting there, misleading non-technical readers, while A&E9/11 have gone on and built a replacement site and apparently forgotten about it.

            Yes, the various calculations of aircraft impact all gave similar results. The Tower would still stand (and that proved true) but the perimeter would be breached (also true) letting the wings and their fuel tanks within (right again) starting an horrendous fire. The designers got all of that spot on.

            But the designers left it there. By their own admission, they didn’t attempt to calculate the effect of fire upon the remaining structure.

            I don’t blame them. They had only 1960s computers. The exact distribution of both damage and subsequent fire would have depended upon the precise details of the impact. Modern computing power can simulate hundreds of slightly different impacts and thousands of the possible resulting fire patterns, and present the likelihood of various outcomes. That was not an option in 1964, so I’m not surprised that they didn’t even attempt it. Would the company’s R&D department have been enthusiastic to fund expensive but inevitably inconclusive study that might suggest that the buildings could collapse? Or go public with the first-order result; “the buildings would stand after impact”? What would YOU expect, in the market-driven USA?

            I only mentioned the “redistributing loans” typo because it seemed so ironic; the bane of the financial system, right there at the heart of the New York financial district – and it all came tumbling down…

          • Kempe

            Leslie Robertson the chief structural engineer on the WTC who did the calculations has said the scenario he worked on was that of a B707 lost in fog and looking for somewhere to land like the B25 that hit the Empire State. So that would’ve been an aircraft closer to its maximum landing weight and travelling at 180 mph. It’s unlikely that a B707 could manage 600 mph at low level, it would also exceed the overland speed restriction so why consider it?

            http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

          • Clark

            Kempe, apparently John Skilling referred to a paper study that considered a 600mph impact. From that same History Commons page:

            The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: β€œThe buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707β€”DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.

            Apparently NIST made reference to it, originally at the following link which no longer works:

            http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

            Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71

            Both studies found the same thing; that the aircraft would penetrate the perimeter – wings, fuel and all, so there’d be a major fire, but the building would remain standing. Well, that was exactly what happened. I have found no record of any attempt to calculate whether the fire would cause the damaged building to collapse.

  • Paul Barbara

    http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/with-regards-to-philip-zelikow-what.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/Twnyq+(Cindy+Sheehan%27s+Soapbox)
    Jon Gold
    1/17/2017

    ‘If you don’t know who he is, Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry wrote, β€œthough he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.”

    Over the years, we have read several reports having to do with the β€œsuspicious behavior” of Philip Zelikow (to put it nicely, you could say “criminal behavior”). As it states in the linked article β€œon October 9th, 2010, during β€œFreedom Watch” with Judge Napolitano, 9/11 Whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer alleges that during a lunch in Philadelphia, a 9/11 Commissioner told him that, β€œeverybody on the commission was covering for someone.” The following week, Judge Napolitano asked Philip Zelikow to appear on the show to talk about this. He REFUSED.”

    I had read another story recently where Zelikow refused an β€œon-camera interview,” and it occurred to me that I have seen him do things like refuse interviews or comments several times over the years. In the article that I read, it states β€œZelikow (they spelled it Zeleco, but I fixed it) declined an on-camera interview but says he pulled no punches and says the commission was well aware of the NSA’s findings about al Qaeda even if the raw intelligence wasn’t fully explored.”

    That is bullshit. The idea that they β€œpulled no punches” or were β€œwell aware of the NSA’s findings about al Qaeda” considering the lengths they went to avoid the NSA, is laughable…..’

    It goes on…Zelikow refuses to answer questions….
    He was in charge of making sure no genuine info got out, or even made it to the discussion stage.

    • Clark

      I’m well aware that the 9/11 Commission report answered very little and that the vast majority of its source material remains classified. I therefore went to Wikipedia expecting to find that Zelikow was a rampant neocon. However, I was surprised to find this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zelikow#George_W._Bush_administration

      He is also named by sources such as Jack Goldsmith’s The Terror Presidency as an internal critic of the treatment of terrorist captives, and there was wide attention given to an address he made on this subject after leaving office in April 2007.

      Based on speeches and internal memos, some political analysts believe that Zelikow disagreed with aspects of the Bush administration’s Middle Eastern policy.

      As Counselor to Secretary of State Rice, Zelikow opposed the Bush administration Torture Memos. In 2006, Zelikow wrote a memorandum warning that the abuse of prisoners through so-called “enhanced interrogation” could constitute war crimes. Bush administration officials ignored his recommendations, and tried to collect all copies of the memo and destroy them.

      • Paul Barbara

        Well, they say Hitler liked dogs….perhaps Wikipedia isn’t the best source for this sort of information…
        Try: ‘PDF]The Zealots of Dominance: The Neocon Factor in 9/11 – SF911Truth.org ‘
        http://www.sf911truth.org/neocons.pdf

        Well, your expectations were right…. he is a rampant Neocon.
        An interesting document (part of a book); I haven’t got time to go through it thoroughly, but I did note some good (and new to me) info.

        • Clark

          Well I’ll give Zelikow three stars. One for opposing torture, and anyone who gets all copies of their memorandum rounded up for deletion has to earn two stars for that. He can have some black marks too, for working for Bush and helping orchestrate the 9/11 Commission cover-up.

          • Clark

            “…there was wide attention given to an address he made on this subject after leaving office in April 2007”

            Well are you going to find it on YouTube and post a link or shall I? Anyone? Or a transcript? What did that memo say? Or maybe we shouldn’t because Bush was only pretending not to want us to…

            Am I getting the hang of this?

    • Clark

      I note that the video you’ve linked is one of the versions that edits out the bits about Trump being a good friend of Larry Silverstein, that if he were president he’d have retaliated to 9/11 “very, very hard”, and where he describes 9/11 as like “Pearl Harbor”.

      Isn’t Trump deceptive enough without you helping to sanitise his image? Why not link the full version? Truthers misleading other Truthers. Pah!

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

      As [Trump] fed the political machine, he also had to work with unions and companies known to be controlled by New York’s ruling mafia families, which had infiltrated the construction industry, according to court records, federal task force reports and newspaper accounts. No serious presidential candidate has ever had Trump’s depth of documented business relationships with mob-controlled entities

      • Clark

        See, the difference between you and me, John, is that I think other readers should be offered a balanced view, whereas you like to offer a view that leads in a particular direction. It’s about whether you respect the reading public and credit them with enough intelligence to make their own decision, or if you think they’re just a load of “sheeple”.

      • DeepGreenPuddock

        Nicely put,Clark.
        We shouldn’t be fooled by the picometre thick veneer of respectability that Trump has managed to spray over his gangster entourage. It will wear off rather quickly.

    • DeepGreenPuddock

      While the it is an enjoyable enough experience to watch the hubris of some who have an assumption of entitlement (Clinton/Bush/Blair spring to mind) experience their nemesis, one must question the manifest folly of endorsing an unadulterated, half-witted sociopath’s ascent to a position of such power. I don’t need prescience to foresee the kinds of disasters that this nascent dictator will bring about.
      I notice that the article mentions George Soros. He is also quoted in the Guardian today. He says May won’t last, and he says that Brexit will be fudged into meaninglessness (or reversed)- both these assertions coincide with mu own feeling-that the instability brought about Brexit will produce a rapid retreat.
      Has anyone else noticed the VERY rapid increases in food prices over the last few months? According to Soros, it is this that will sharpen minds. Price inflation, and opportunities and earnings deflation. Not a formula to create a successful government.
      The position of people like Johnson, and Gove, and others almost exactly mirror Trump’s position. A bunch of opportunistic, reactionary charlatans and either vicious psychopaths or, like Gove, deluded by his own scintillating narcissism.
      There will come a time when the only answer is a rope and a lamp post, and it might surprise you who will be seen swaying in the breeze.

      • Clark

        DeepGreenPuddock, I’m seriously worried; history seems to be repeating itself. Long term deterioration of economic conditions cause widespread dissatisfaction, but populist politicians and the corporate media exploit their audience’s base tribalism to deflect blame onto minorities, encouraging average public mood to drift towards the Right.

        It’s a repeated pattern in human history but the difference this time is that with unprecedentedly high population, resource depletion, pollution, climate change, industrial time-bombs like the 440 nuclear power reactors and a million tonnes of stored depleted uranium fluoride, plus of course our vast stockpiles of weapons – conventional, nuclear and biological – humanity may not get a further chance. We need to get smarter, faster than we’ve shown ourselves to be capable of.

        Trump said he’d expand the US “defense” budget, didn’t he?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark January 20, 2017 at 11:35
          ‘DeepGreenPuddock, I’m seriously worried; history seems to be repeating itself. Long term deterioration of economic conditions cause widespread dissatisfaction, but populist politicians and the corporate media exploit their audience’s base tribalism to deflect blame onto minorities, encouraging average public mood to drift towards the Right….’

          You’re perfectly entitled to be worried; everybody should be. And the endless wars, and ‘Strategy of Tension’ coninued from Gladio I to Gladio II, with ‘Terrorist Attacks’ and hoaxes, just with new ‘Patsies’ – Muslims blamed instead of the ‘Reds’.
          If people are unaware of Gladio, they should read up on it, because the PTB are just continuing it to ‘justify’ wars and internal crackdowns on civil rights, as well as using the ‘Terrorist Threat’ to gather more and more information on all of us – knowledge is power, so the more they know about us, the easier it is to control us.
          Just as in Indonesia with the fake .Communist Coup’, used to rid the country of five Nationalist generals and serving as a justification for a huge, brutal culling of the Left, Suharto was given lists of people to eliminate by the Americans; they did the same in Chile and other Latin American countries.
          Post-war Germany also exposed a list of Germans to be eliminated by the Gladio secret forces of NATO; our ‘Intelligence Agencies’ will also have lists of dissidents and potential trouble makers to be eliminated or incarcerated when the inevitable SHTF.

          • Clark

            I agree in principle, but Trump’s not going to help. His chosen vice-president is Pence, who supported the USA Patriot Act on its passage in 2001, and in 2005 called the act β€œessential to our continued success in the war on terror here at home”. Pence is also coal and mining money, which may help explain how Trump can be so anti-Muslim.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 20, 2017 at 13:13
            Trump is an assh*le, period.
            But the ‘Hildabeast’ is worse; her credentials, and those of her ‘Hubby’ ‘Bill’ are very widely known.

            But does ‘agreeing in principle’ include Gladio? You nicely sidestepped the issue, so can I ask you specifically are you aware of the CIA organised terror attacks?
            This is extremely important, because the CIA/NATO are using the same blueprint for European atrocities and hoaxes.

1 101 102 103