Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC

Home Forums Discussion Forum Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC

This topic contains 239 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Node 1 month, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
  • #46858 Reply


    WTC Building 7 was a 47 story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center Complex. On 9/11/2001 at 5:20pm it collapsed to the ground in under 12 seconds. It was not hit by an aircraft like its sister buildings, the WTC twin towers 1 and 2. Professor Leroy Hulsey, head of the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (and a recognized expert in forensic engineering) along with two graduate assistants recently concluded a 4 year investigation into the extraordinary collapse of this New York skyscraper.

    The official body charged with investigating and reporting on the collapse, the USA’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), had previously issued a report stating that the collapse had been caused by office fires burning around floors 12 and 13 during the course of the day. These office fires they believed caused a structural failure starting in the North East corner of the building at column 79, floor 13, and this then started a chain reaction of further structural failures until the entire building collapsed into its own footprint.

    Since the dramatic collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001, the building has been replaced with a new skyscraper constructed over the original WTC 7 footprint.

    Press Release:

    Contact: Ted Walter
    (510) 292-4710
    [email protected]
    September 4, 2019
    University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause
    3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11

    FAIRBANKS, Alaska – The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in New
    York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to a
    draft report released yesterday by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
    following a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse.

    The UAF team’s findings contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
    (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which concluded in a 2008 report that
    WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire. The collapse of WTC 7
    has long been the subject of controversy, with critics of the government’s account arguing it was
    brought down in a controlled demolition.

    UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey was the study’s principal investigator. Feng Xiao,
    now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology, and Zhili Quan,
    now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, were research
    assistants and co-authors.

    “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video,”
    said Professor Hulsey. “We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of
    failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have
    occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on
    9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17.”
    The UAF study was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit
    representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization’s
    petition calling upon Congress to open a new investigation into the destruction of the three
    World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

    The release of the draft report begins a two-month period during which the public is invited to
    submit comments. The final report will be published later this year. The research team plans to
    make public by the end of September all of the data used and generated during the study, a
    decision that contrasts with NIST’s withholding of key modeling data on the grounds that
    releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”

    For more information, visit and

  • #46875 Reply


    I have suspected for some time that WTC7 may have been brought down by emergency demolition, proposed and executed by a small team of very dedicated and determined firefighters and their colleagues on the day of 9/11. I expect that such demolition was not officially sanctioned, and was executed covertly while the authorities pretended not to know. There are several lines of circumstantial evidence which strongly suggest this; I will enumerate them later if requested.

    I know that my opinion will be most unwelcome among those who promote the theory that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives before 9/11. I remind such Twin Tower demolition theorists that my opinion converges with that of the late Danny Jowenko, Dutch expert demolition engineer.

    I have spent many hours studying the structure of the Twin Towers, and painstakingly watching the videos of the collapses, often frame-by-frame. The claim that the collapses “broke Newton’s laws” are entirely without merit. The collapses proceeded entirely in accordance with Newton’s laws of motion (in which I am sufficiently competent); indeed, the manner of the collapses could have been predicted by application of Newton’s laws.

    Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” theory applies only to a contiguous block of material, not to a lattice of steel supporting thousands of tonnes of concrete in a structure that was over 90% empty space. Judy Wood’s “arguments” are based on a single misleading statement and are probably meant as a parody of Chandler’s; considering her qualifications and expertise it seems inconceivable that she intends them seriously.

    Likewise, Gage’s claim about the Twin Towers “collapsing through the line of most resistance” is also without merit. The line of most resistance was the buildings’ cores, which the video record shows to have stood the longest after collapse initiation. Next strongest were the perimeters, which took second longest to fall. The collapses proceeded fastest through the wide-span floor assemblies, occupying the space between core and perimeter and void of vertical support structure, the weakest line of descent.

    In any case, the bottom-up collapse of WTC7 tells us nothing of the top-down collapses of the Twin Towers, and the latter appear perfectly natural (under the highly exceptional circumstances) whereas the former does not.

    Having said all that, WTC7 was an absolute pig’s ear of a building; look at the engineering diagrams if you don’t believe me. It looked like it had been cobbled together out of left-over parts, it was built on caissons laid years previously intended for a building of less than half the height and less than a third of the weight, and it had an elaborate truss arrangement to straddle a pre-existing electricity sub-station. Whoever brought this down at such short notice and so relatively symmetrically has my deep respect.
    – – – – – – – – –

    Promoters of Twin Tower demolition theory are promoting entirely the wrong message about the collapses. The Twin Towers were disasters waiting to happen, as many suspected at the time of their construction. Their sprinkler systems were inadequate to control any fire greater than one quarter of one floor, and their evacuation facilities were criminally inadequate; some steel components had fire protection rated at only 90 minutes, whereas full evacuation was known to require over three hours – tens of thousands of people would need to escape via just three tiny staircases.

    The real message of the Twin Tower collapses is that the commercial system cares not a jot about people’s lives or safety, and builds fragile structures prone to catastrophic, runaway failure. This message has indeed been buried by the corporate media; the US and indeed global economy would itself collapse if staff realised and refused to work in such arrogantly ambitious phallic symbols.

    • #46883 Reply


      Here is a link to view the video presentation by Professor Hulsey on the release of his draft report examining the WTC 7 collapse. The talk took place at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the evening of Sep 3rd. Professor Hulsey is scheduled to give a similar presentation this evening, Sep 5th, at the University of California Berkeley. However, so far there has been no mention of this latest presentation also being live streamed.

      Be aware that the audio is extremely poor for the first few minutes while a presenter makes some introductory remarks about Professor Hulsey to the audience. However, once Professor Hulsey takes the mic and starts his presentation, the audio quality improves significantly to a more normal, clear quality. It would be best to maximize the video size to better view the slides and video clips used as part of the presentation. The video runs 1hr 12min in length.

      Link to Professor Hulsey’s Presentation at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Sep 3rd 2019.

      • #46898 Reply


        The problem with Professor Hulsey’s investigation is that nearly all the building debris was disposed of years before either his investigation or the NIST investigation even began. It will never be possible to know if all the specified components were actually fitted, or whether substandard parts were substituted. Maybe he and his highly respectable team have been able to address some of this, but it seems unlikely that much can be proved conclusively.

        WTC7 stood for many hours beyond its fire rating, everyone was evacuated and so no one was hurt or killed in the collapse. Consequently, investigation was of a much lower priority than the Twin Towers. In fact its collapse was a godsend to the fire-fighters, who wished to search for their comrades trapped in the wreckage of the Twin Towers.

    • #46887 Reply

      ZigZag Wanderer

      “and builds fragile structures prone to catastrophic, runaway failure.” … If the standard of steel high rise is so fragile and prone to catastrophic runaway failure why has there been not a single example of such failure anywhere , ever?

      These fragile structures you mention seem to be remarkably robust.

      • #46892 Reply


        “why has there been not a single example of such failure anywhere , ever?”

        Actually, numerous steel structures have collapsed; Crystal Palace springs to mind. The Twin Tower collapses were highly unusual, but so was the extent of the initiating damage and fire.

        “These fragile structures you mention seem to be remarkably robust”

        Actually, the Twin Towers had about one third of the overall density of skyscrapers built in the 1930s, such as the Empire State building. Such earlier buildings also had internal support more evenly distributed, whereas the Twin Towers incorporated 22 metre floor spans for “open plan” office design. It was these stacked floor structures that underwent catastrophic runaway destruction. But we all know that things were built more solidly in the ’30s than the ’70s; just think of your old Ford Cortina.

        The Twin Towers were built within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and as such were not subject to the usual building regulations; that design would not have been permitted elsewhere. Some engineers such as Charlie Thornton were horrified by the design.

        • #46896 Reply


          Here’s veteran skyscraper engineer Charlie Thornton:

          At 02:15 –

          “The people who designed it and the Port Authority, in their public relations and publicity, said what you just said,” [that the buildings were very strong] “but in fact, in plain English, the buildings were a piece of shit.”

          And here’s an excerpt from the professional journal Fire Engineering, archived at

          “The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings’ fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions”

          • #46903 Reply


            Here is the SAME ENGINEER

            What does Mr Thornton say about the towers and an aircraft ?

            “wouldn’t do anything to the main building”

            “as for knocking it over, would not happen”

            Then after 911 when he gets a US govt contract – “the buildings were shit”. Yeah Right Charlie.

          • #46910 Reply


            Listen to the whole section; here’s a longer excerpt:

            Thornton was clearly comparing wind load with the relatively minor impact of an aircraft. He said that an aircraft couldn’t knock the building over, and indeed, the 9/11 impacts did not.

            You quoted selectively, leaving out the following:

            “it could affect localised structural elements, it could knock out a column, it could be some damage”

            Yes, in 1988, when the video was made, Thornton is being loyal to his profession, playing down the likely effects of an aircraft impact, and not being rude about another professional’s work. He’d expect the same in return, of course, and Skilling would be unlikely to call Thornton’s designs “overweight, heavy constructions with masses of unnecessary stone and concrete”.

          • #46924 Reply


            this is an engineer talking about the WTC. Sitting in the WTC. Because he is an engineer employed to maintain and oversee the WTC.

            Is he wrong too ?

            Was John Skilling, the lead structural engineer who designed the towers wrong with his analysis ? (and it did account for jet fuel btw)

          • #46952 Reply


            No, he isn’t wrong. The aircraft did indeed puncture the “screen netting” (a fact that many Truthers declare impossible, and get away with) and the buildings indeed continued to stand.

            Do we know that the buildings hadn’t become overloaded and weakened in use? Floor assemblies had been breached to install entire escalator systems. Massive lead-acid battery backup rooms had been installed. By 2001 nearly every desk probably held an old-fashioned glass CRT computer monitor, unanticipated when the buildings were designed.

          • #46908 Reply


            You failed to mention that Mr Thornton’s business partner was the guy who ultimately signed to allow the steel (EVIDENCE) to be removed and shipped off.

            We could have known from directional shear stud damage for example, exactly what had moved where, in order to initiate the collapses.

            Why do you think the US govt allowed and facilitated the destruction of evidence, using people they would then award major contracts to?

            How do you see Mr Thornton’s change of heart re the towers now? I hear numbers that I understand when he is explaining how resilient they are. I know they’re 16 times stiffer than a conventional high rise.

            I don’t hear him explaining anything about them structurally to justify his comments. He could not lace John Skilling’s boots.

          • #46914 Reply


            I didn’t mention Thornton’s business partner because I didn’t know, but I’m not particularly surprised; there can’t be very many players in the hi-rise design game. Likewise with the awards of contracts; the US government wanted the whole matter of building collapses played down as quickly as possible, while they moved swiftly to their favourite pass-time of attacking defenceless countries.

            I explain Thornton’s change of heart by the building collapses that had just killed three thousand people. Along side the fact that it had probably made him angry it was also terribly bad for business; much better to pin it on a “bad apple” than to let it taint the whole industry.

    • #46902 Reply


      WTC 7 couldn’t have been rigged in a few hours.

      I have also studied the towers structural details. I obtained the drawings this year, so i would be surprised if you’d seen them.

      I headed up the research group who began uncovering these details in WTC7 from analysis of the structural drawings and comparison to NIST’s report, when we got the drawings 7 or 8 years ago.

      This study from Alaska corrects stiffener plate omissions, shear stud omissions, plate dimension errors, artificial pinning of the perimeter columns, omission of lateral support beams, and exaggeration of thermalexpansion in the steels.

      You have to ask yourself when NIST claim that a 53ft beam can expand over 6.25″ over 577C. Not gonna happen. Ever.

      Every error and omission that NISt made was in favour of their chosen hypothesis. EVERY single one made failure at column 79 look a little more likely.

      We are about a year into analysing the Tower drawings now, and I can say that NIST’s model for those is even worse than their attempt at WTC7.

      We will see a similar study to this for the towers before too long. You should maybe take a proper look at the structure and try to be on the right side of that debate when it comes.

      Here’s the tower drawings – if you’re into your engineering you’ll love them. There’s about 15,000. Bring me any SE who claims it was fire and I will take you and him through the drawings for any one of these buildings and explain the reality to you.

      • #46909 Reply


        I do not defend NIST’s analysis of WTC7’s collapse, though I feel that I must point out that your “correct[ion of] stiffener plate omissions, shear stud omissions, […], omission of lateral support beams]” cannot be verified because the building debris is no longer available.

        Civilian controlled demolition indeed takes ages to rig, because adjacent structures must not be damaged. Under conditions where adjacent damage is not a concern, military engineers have certainly brought down buildings very rapidly on many occasions. This is what I suspect happened under the emergency conditions of 9/11. It is what fire-fighters said would happen, what John Kerry though had happened, what Larry Silverstein seemed to suggest had happened, and what, according to one report (ABC I think) he was trying to arrange.

        I do not deal with collapse initiation of the Twin Towers; it is beyond my abilities, and I am aware of NIST’s failure to simulate collapse initiation. If explosives or incendiaries were used to aid initiation of either collapse they must have been applied at the damaged zones, and that pretty much rules out their being present before the aircraft impacts.

        Estimating the rate of the collapses of the Twin Towers after collapse initiation is well within my abilities with Newtons laws and the momentum equations derived from them, because the margins are so huge that detailed consideration of the structure is entirely unnecessary. A mere glance of the relatively tiny truss seats is sufficient to state that they stood no chance of arresting the descent of ten or eleven floor assemblies, let alone their contents, the vertical frame members, hat truss and service floor contents etc. Likewise, momentum considerations are unequivocal; the internal destruction of floor assemblies was bound to accelerate smartly, leaving the laterally unbraced perimeter to fall outward, which it did, breaking into sections as would be expected. Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” is clearly without merit and I am disappointed (though not surprised) that you didn’t denounce it.

        • #46915 Reply


          “Civilian controlled demolition indeed takes ages to rig, because adjacent structures must not be damaged”

          It also pads out the contract, saves on staff and bolsters the fee, of course. It’s not like you get many jobs per day in that game, is it?

        • #46918 Reply


          Okay then, one issue at a time.

          First. Stiffener plates omitted – FROM THEIR MODEL – of course they were installed in the actual building – I thought you said you had studied this stuff.

          Here’s a video I made about the omission of the stiffener plates by NIST in their analysis reuploaded 6 years ago.

          • #46943 Reply


            The stiffener plates are relevant to WTC7. I have no desire to defend NIST’s analysis of WTC7’s collapse.

        • #46919 Reply


          And there you go blaming the truss seats. The concrete and pan with rebar above the trusses was stronger than them and sagging trusses in the towers do not have the ability to pull the perimeter columns in as observed. In the transverse areas of the towers the long span floor truss system was not connected to the core, but to the short span transfer truss.

          This indicates that for the perimeter coolumns to be pulled in on the South face of the Borth tower some 5 – 10 minutes before initiation would require a failure within the core area, thus causing the perimeters to be pulled in. In NIST’s tower analysis the added an imaginary 5kip lateral force to the perimeter column to get them to bend in as observed, for the very reason that the sagging trusses could not do it.

          They also omitted bridging trusses in all the one way zones throughout their full tower model along with anchor straps and shear studs along with other reinforcement.

          You can observe that the antenna of the north tower tilts before the roofline moves at initiation, confirming a failure initiating event initially confined to the core, not yet having transmitted through the outrigger truss above floor 107 that held the antenna support steels.

          The North tower collapsed in about 13.8s total which equates to around 2/3 freefall, total freefall being approcx 9.2s for 1365ft. Still way too fast.

          Maybe you should go get that SE to help you out a bit here.

          • #46945 Reply


            I have no interest in defending NIST’s collapse initiation scenario. That perimeter walls bowed in is a matter of photographic and video record, but then so is the early descent of WTC1’s antenna, indicating core failure.

          • #46946 Reply


            …though I wouldn’t have used the term “confined to”. Damage on 9/11 was anything but confined.

          • #46949 Reply


            “The North tower collapsed in about 13.8s total which equates to around 2/3 freefall, total freefall being approcx 9.2s for 1365ft. Still way too fast.”

            Yes, the internal collapse accelerated at around 2/3 of g, so 1/3 of the entire potential energy of the structure (before collapse) was available for destruction of materials.

            Convert that to TNT equivalent and you can see that it was way more than enough.

          • #46950 Reply


            “the internal collapse accelerated at around 2/3 of g…”

            That’s Chandler’s very good work too; he has a video on YouTube, a shot of WTC1’s collapse from afar, with superimposed descending bars indicating free-fall and the actual progression of the internal collapse front.

        • #46923 Reply


          “A mere glance of the relatively tiny truss seats is sufficient to state that they stood no chance of arresting the descent of ten or eleven floor assemblies, let alone their contents”

          That sounds great until you take into account the fact that the floor system in the twin towers did not take any of gravity load of the building. It supported and it’s own weight. It’s job structurally was to transfer lateral loads redistributing overstress.

          You said you’d studied this stuff. Trying to tell me about the structurak details for towers that you have NEVER seen the structural drawings for until tonight. And here you are getting the basics of a framed tube design wrong. Structural 101.

          You should probably go get that SE now….. It would make for a more enlightening exchange.

          • #46947 Reply


            “the floor system in the twin towers did not take any of gravity load of the building”

            Precisely. The floor systems were never intended to take the weight of the structure above – someone needs to ram this home to people like Gage.

            Of course when the vertical columns got out of line at collapse initiation, a floor system or two is precisely what would be the next line of defence against collapse. No chance.

      • #46912 Reply


        “WTC 7 couldn’t have been rigged in a few hours.”

        Hang on, what exactly are you suggesting here? It was fire-fighters who were saying that WTC7 “might be brought down”, and “move back; that building is about to blow up”. Are you saying that someone secretly rigged WTC7 for demolition pre-9/11, and then, after nearly 300 fire-fighters had been killed while attempting to rescue people from WTCs 2 and 1, they let the surviving brothers in on the secret that they’d had WTC7 rigged for weeks and were about to detonate it? And the fire-fighters didn’t immediately turn round and murder these explosive-rigging maniacs?

        That doesn’t sound like a plausible scenario to me.

        • #46922 Reply


          WOAH – I have just realised what you are actually saying.

          just to be clear- you are saying that WTC7 was rigged ON THE DAY of 911 ?

          When Danny Jowenko made the comment about “they must have worked hard” he was being sarcastic/ You clearly have no comprehension whatsoever of what it takes to get a steel frame to come straight down, evenly like that.

          You don’t look at that sort of structure and CD it a few hours later the same day.

          • #46944 Reply


            Yes, I’m saying that an emergency demolition was performed on WTC7, on the day of 9/11.

            I stress emergency, not “controlled”. A civilian demolition is “controlled” in the sense that the company guarantees to limit the adjacent damage, and will pay compensation should damage exceed those limits. None of this applied post-collapse of WTCs 1 and 2; saving lives became the priority. The fire-fighters were on the verge of mutiny, prevented from searching for their lost comrades in the WTC7 exclusion zone.

            Military engineers have repeatedly brought down structures in a matter of hours, behind enemy lines. Similar to 9/11, adjacent damage is not going to spark compensation claims and “control” is not the primary objective. It is true that WTC7 came down pretty symmetrically. Considerable asymmetry in fact occurred, but it was only clear from one of the camera angles, and all the more commonly seen shots make the fall look more symmetrical than it was. The fall also damaged two adjacent buildings; though most of the debris did end up in the building’s footprint, it would have been considered an expensive failure as a controlled demolition.

            I think the remarkable symmetry of collapse was a combination of skill, luck, and WTC7’s unusual truss arrangement straddling a pre-existing electricity transformer substation; the “bridge” upon which the core was constructed acted as a convenient way of dropping the core.

          • #47033 Reply


            “When Danny Jowenko made the comment about “they must have worked hard” he was being sarcastic”

            Can you be sure? Almost the next thing he said was, resignedly, “I can’t explain it”. To have been sarcastic, his earlier comment would have had to have been based on an explanation.

      • #46917 Reply


        “WTC 7 couldn’t have been rigged in a few hours.”

        The sort of pre-rigging you’re suggesting is also implausible for another, more mundane reason. Pre-rigging for a typical civilian controlled demolition involves pre-weakening structural members with disc cutters, and boring holes ready to take explosive charges. If I’d have worked in WTC7 I think I’d have been pretty suspicious if gashes and holes had started accumulating all over the building, especially if the building had suddenly collapsed subsequently, so unless you know of such reports from staff I think we should conclude that any such work was done after WTC7 was evacuated on 9/11.

        Don’t get so focussed on structural engineering that you lose sight of the bigger picture.

        • #46920 Reply


          You could use an incendiary to do any pre weakening that couldn’t be accessed for WTC7

          You can get to almost all 47 cores of either tower at all levels from the elevator shafts.

          Didn’t they have the “largest elevator upgrade in history” in the WTc in the year before the attack ?

          • #46953 Reply


            I thought the “largest elevator upgrade in history” was WTCs 1 and 2, not 7, but do check if you wish.

            Explosives in WTCs 1 and 2’s cores do not help us explain those collapses, because the video record shows that those cores fell only after the floor stacks had torn themselves to pieces and the perimeters had toppled outwards.

        • #46921 Reply


          The boring holes bit doesn’t apply so much to steel frames. 45 degree cut charges to make the core step off itself doesnt need holes drilling.

        • #46977 Reply

          Rhys Jaggar

          Is not the point of using namothermite that it will cut the steel for you, obviating the need for disc cutters?

          • #46989 Reply


            A thermite substance might explain the “attacked” steel that FEMA found in the WTC7 debris, which NIST notably failed to mention despite FEMA stating that it required explanation. Thermite would also be easy to make at short notice from commonly available substances.

    • #46926 Reply


      “Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” theory applies only to a contiguous block of material, not to a lattice of steel supporting thousands of tonnes of concrete in a structure that was over 90% empty space. Judy Wood’s “arguments” are based on a single misleading statement and are probably meant as a parody of Chandler’s; considering her qualifications and expertise it seems inconceivable that she intends them seriously.”

      With your permission, I could ask David to come on and respond to you here personally ? Not saying he will, but I could ask him.
      You’ll get shorter shrift from him than me though, mentioning Judy in the same paragraph as him. Remember, he is the guy who got NISt to admit that WTC7 fell at a rate of freefall for 2.25s.

      Will probably take him about that long to destroy your attempt at smearing his research.

      • #46942 Reply


        I’m not smearing Chandler’s research; he did very well measuring the descent rate of WTC7. Incidentally I take his measurements more seriously than he does himself – he gets a nice smooth velocity curve, and that indicates accuracy, so I’m prepared to accept that the WTC7 roofline’s acceleration briefly exceeded g.

        The implication of that is that the roofline is less than indicative of the behaviour of the entire system. Much confusion has been generated, both by over-simplification and over-complication, eg. “g” and “free-fall” have been used interchangeably, but g is a rate of acceleration whereas free-fall is a physical condition. A thing can accelerate at g without being in free-fall, and none of the observable system elements were in free-fall, because they being affected by elements we can’t see.

        Yes, I’d like a chat with Chandler; please do ask him to join us. Can we keep Gage from getting involved please? He seems angry and unpleasant, and I doubt I could remain in conversation. I have heard that David Chandler is a Quaker; do you know if that is so? I attend Chelmsford Meeting of the friends, but I am not myself a member.

    • #46972 Reply


      Peter Ketcham, a former National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) employee, explains in the video linked below that he had always been very proud of working for NIST (as a computer scientist/mathematician) and believed at one time that NIST had an established reputation for doing “research of the highest integrity”. He was employed by NIST at the time the investigation into the WTC collapses was ongoing, but was not involved in that research himself.

      He describes in the video how he became very disillusioned with his former employer when it was drawn to his attention that NIST had apparently made some quite egregious errors in the investigations into the WTC collapses. For one example that springs to mind, he found that NIST was quite clearly misleading the public when they boldly insisted computer modeling of their proposed WTC7 collapse initiation and the following couple of seconds closely matched what was seen in the actual videos of the event when it clearly did not.

      Furthermore, he questions NIST apparent obsession with only identifying an initiating event or failure that could possibly start a collapse process but then ignoring any investigation into the subsequent behaviour of the falling structures, as if that was entirely inconsequential to producing a well rounded and comprehensive report of the three most significant structural failures in history.

      Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out | 9/11 Evidence and NIST

      • #46984 Reply


        The video Stand for Truth has the clearest video images of the Twin Tower core remnants, both during and immediately after collapse, that I know of anywhere. It clearly confirms that the cores stood longest, after the internal collapse had stripped out the floor assemblies and the perimeters had consequently tumbled outward. This rules out destruction of the buildings by initial explosive segmentation of the cores.

        NIST made many errors and frequently returned sloppy work, but their statement that after initiation, rapid global collapse became inevitable, is true. It is true by a very wide margin. This is why there has not been a massive outcry from the global physics and engineering communities.

    • #47516 Reply


      It takes weeks if not months to properly rig a building of that size to implode. It is not feasible to consider that the building was somehow rigged for a perfect demolition in the few hours after the Twins collapsed while a massive rescue operation was underway at the pile. Fire fighters would not have had time to rig Building 7 that day. No chance. They were much too busy.

      But let’s say for a second that they did. How come they used state-of-the-art, military-grade-only at the time Nano-composites of Thermite? Why would they have had access to such a rare & remarkable compound & why would they use it instead of much more reliable, available & understood mechanisms?

      The evidence that Nano-Thermite was used in both the demolition of Building 7 AND the twin towers makes it extremely unlikely that building 7 was rigged that morning. It is apparent that someone spent months if not years preparing those three towers for the 9/11 plane impacts.

      It’s tough on the cognition, but them’s the facts.

      Then of course, there’s the five dancing Isreali’s arrested in New Jersey after a witness reported a van full of ARABS celebrating with the burning towers & falling office workers as the backdrop to their photo’s & video. There is no way to shoe-horn five Israeli’s dressed as Arabs into the Al-Qaeda-dunnit thesis. If Arabs were happy enough to die flying planes into buildings it strikes me as extremely unlikely that they would have balked at celebrating the attacks in public.

      In other words, if Israeli’s had to dress up as ARABS to celebrate 9/11 in public to implicate Arabs in the attacks, why do we believe Arabs were on those planes? Perhaps the suicide pilots were Israeli’s, not Arabs.

      • #47520 Reply


        I’m going off my “emergency demolition” scenario because of the 0.5 seconds of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity as measured by Chandler, which is inconsistent with collapse initiation by explosives, see here, but almost every other claim you make is questionable at best, so here goes…

        “It takes weeks if not months to properly rig a building of that size to implode.”

        Teams of military engineers routinely rig demolitions in hours.

        “It is not feasible to consider that the building was somehow rigged for a perfect demolition in the few hours”

        It wasn’t perfect; WTC7’s collapse wrote off one other building and did millions of dollars of damage to another.

        “Fire fighters would not have had time to rig Building 7 that day”

        But there is a major naval base just across the water, so a SEAL team perhaps? They do demolitions.

        “How come they used state-of-the-art, military-grade-only at the time Nano-composites of Thermite?”

        I know of no evidence of nano thermite. I thought the Harrit paper alleges only ordinary thermite, which is easy to make from common materials. So far as I know, nanothermite was proposed only because normal thermite reacts too slowly for a sequenced, theatrical demolition of the Twin Towers; it’s impossible to time accurately enough.

        “It’s tough on the cognition…”

        Please, don’t talk down to people this way; I’m entirely capable of imagining and considering such scenarios. I reject demolition theory not because it is too scary to consider, but because it doesn’t fit the facts.

        “There is no way to shoe-horn five Israeli’s dressed as Arabs…”

        This is the first I’ve heard that the “dancing Israelis” were dressed as Arabs; please substantiate.

        “…into the Al-Qaeda-dunnit thesis”

        Perhaps you are unaware of the decades-long de facto alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Israeli infiltration and exploitation of Islamist groups. But in any case, “al Qaeda” is merely a convenient label, applied by propagandists when the Wahhabist extremists do something embarrassing to the Neocon alliance. When such extremists do something convenient for Neocon objectives, the propagandists call them “threatened civilians”, “freedom fighters” or “moderate rebels”.

        “why do we believe Arabs were on those planes? Perhaps the suicide pilots were Israeli’s, not Arabs”

        1) The Israeli ideology does not inspire suicide attacks, whereas Wahhabist indoctrination is well known to; indeed, this is what makes it so valuable for projection of Saudi power worldwide, and hence to the Neocon alliance.

        2) Even if 9/11 was a purely Israeli operation as you seem to be saying, would it not make more sense for Israel to exploit Wahhabist-inspired suicide hijackers?

        3) Many thousands of US citizens were involved in the various investigations. It might be possible to persuade or coerce a few people into endorsing a completely false finding, but not that many; some would speak out, knowing that many others would confirm the truth of what they were saying.

        4) Many agents spoke out after 9/11 about how their investigations would have revealed the hijackers, had not higher authorities ordered them to stop.

  • #46956 Reply


    Gerry, I’d like to thank you for having kept the discussion reasonably well-focussed upon engineering and physics. I have had many very unpleasant exchanges with “9/11 Truthers” who leap about diverse points eg. as if lack of effective airport security had some relevance to building collapse rates etc., and they have insisted upon insinuating that I’m some sort of pro-war secret agent, repeatedly sniggering amongst themselves.

    I am no such thing; I’m an anti-war activist since 2003 and now a member of Extinction Rebellion; I spent ten days last April camping on the Marble Arch traffic island, and for many years I was a volunteer helping Craig with this website. It gets really depressing when some self-appointed gang quip among themselves about how I must exult in the murder of innocents, just because I know when Newton’s laws haven’t actually been broken.

    • #46958 Reply


      …and when I praise Chandler’s work I am not being sarcastic; sarcastic voice tones don’t survive transcription to text, so I’m not using sarcasm, I’m trying to write as straight as I can. If I find myself lapsing on that rule I hope to apologise and clarify.

      Chandler has done painstaking observation and measurement of the video record. His “Smoking Guns” videos are simply misinterpretation – the objects that fly apart in mid-air are spinning, and fly apart due to conservation of angular momentum. The objects that suddenly change direction seem to have been struck by other falling debris; you can even make out some of the impinging objects.

      The whole matter of the Twin Tower collapses has become highly polarised and contentious with nearly all participants taking one side or the other and accusing their opposite numbers of ill intent; an entirely inappropriate environment for detached and rational analysis. Let’s try to work together to correct that as best we can.

    • #46979 Reply

      Rhys Jaggar

      1. Controlled demolition does not break Newton’s laws. It allows building collapse to proceed within normal laws of physics.
      2. Dozens and dozens of first responders reported contemporaneously a series of loud bangs indicative to them of explosions at WTCs 1 and 2. Do you immediately rebut their testimony as wilfully inaccurate?
      3. Expert demolitions professionals conclude that WTC7 collapse was entirely consistent with controlled demolition. Do you regard those specialists as lying incompetents?

      I will not get into the scientific rigour of Extinction Rebellion, but suffice it say that you have a job on your hands to convince me that you are scientifically rigorous.

      FYI, MI5 et al put me under surveillance for strong opposition to Iraq war amongst other things. It was very intrusive surveillance. I have never worked for an arms manufacturer, in the oil industry nor have I ever supported Likud, Verwoerd et al or US imperialism.

      • #46986 Reply


        Sorry, I replied to Rhys Jaggar, but in the wrong place, below. Those wishing to reply on this subtopic please continue there, to preserve continuity.

  • #46982 Reply


    1) After collapse initiation, the collapses of the Twin Towers as recorded on many videos proceeded within the normal laws of physics, without any need for assistance by explosives.

    Indeed, explosives would have noticeably disturbed the natural motion and destruction. Further, observation of the wreckage shows that the perimeter broke into sections by breakage of the bolts at the box section ends, not by melting or explosion. Dust was produced predominantly in the final crush of the internal collapse hitting ground, not evenly throughout collapse as the proposed sequenced detonations would have done.

    2) I regard that testimony as reasonably accurate – after any incident, testimony of different witnesses shows considerable variation. But nearly all such reports concern loud bangs before and up to the time of collapse initiation. There are not widespread reports of percussions in a timed, accelerating sequence during collapse progression.

    3) You seem not to have read what I have written; I wrote that I agree with the late Danny Jowenko, the Dutch demolition expert. I suspect that WTC7 may have been subjected to emergency demolition, decided upon and executed shortly after the collapses of the Twin Towers, so that the fire-fighters could continue rescue operations in the WTC7 exclusion zone.

    My disagreement is one only of semantics; this could not be called a controlled demolition, because the word “controlled” in the term “controlled demolition” refers to guarantees of limiting the extent of adjacent damage. This would have been neither reasonable nor possible in the chaotic environment of 9/11; just for starters, WTC7 was on fire.

    • #46983 Reply


      Sorry, this is a reply to Rhys Jaggar’s comment #46979 of September 7, 08:45.

  • #46985 Reply


    Clarke: forest / trees. Don’t lose sight of the forest when examining the precise texture of a tree’s bark or the pattern of a leaf. Not calling for intuitive guess work but one part of the brain should scan the bigger picture and then decide where to allow the forensic part to look to examine the detail. The bigger picture: novice pilots for towers 1 and 2; no plane at tower 7; and then consider Bill Biney’s statements on the change of policy from targeted to bulk acquisition of domestic and world wide data, which preceded the event in question.

    • #46987 Reply


      fwl, I am aware of and have considered all those matters. My big picture assessment is that the attacks may well have been a Gladio B operation exploiting proxies, either broadly intentional, or something certain parties permitted to get out of hand. I look more to NATO and the military-industrial-secrecy complex than the US government and its (thoroughly penetrated) agencies.

      My assessment of the various collapse dynamics does not conflict with this.

      • #46991 Reply


        Even descending to less clandestine possibilities, we have decades of US collaboration with and exploitation of Wahhabist extremists, emanating primarily from those Western/Israeli allies the Gulf Monarchies, primarily Saudi Arabia.

  • #46990 Reply


    Ok – noted.

  • #47001 Reply


    I recall asking someone to look up WTC7 on their internet phone and watch it fall and they couldn’t accept what they saw as evidence of controlled demolition. And that’s the problem, people know if they allow a bit of truth to enter their mind-set the whole story falls down, which they fear to allow, as what do you do with such information?

    • #47004 Reply


      You’re assuming that they’re more attached to a particular story than you are; controlled demolition can indeed be ruled out, and you need to question your own acceptance of that catch-phrase.

      I assume that you’re not David Chandler.

  • #47008 Reply


    Dorian, your picture in the attic must becoming a fearful sight!

    • #47015 Reply


      Are you suggesting that someone has sold their soul, Dave?

  • #47009 Reply


    Dear God are we going all over this old ground again?

    What part of progressive collapse are Truthers still having problems with?

    Progressive Collapse of structures

    • #47072 Reply



      Nist merely assert that progressive collapse caused the fall of WTC7. They didn’t model it, or even describe it. They offer no proof.

      OTOH, the UAF report demonstrates why it <i>couldn’t</i> have been progressive collapse, and offers for examination all the modelling, engineering, mathematical and physical evidence on which they base their conclusion.

      It doesn’t matter whether progressive collapse can sometimes cause the collapse of some buildings. We now have <i>evidence</i> that it couldn’t have been the cause of WTC7’s fall. Now it is up to you to refute that evidence, or accept it.

      • #47080 Reply


        ” the UAF report demonstrates why it <i>couldn’t</i> have been progressive collapse”

        The UAF report couldn’t possibly do that, because all they have to work from are WTC7’s design documents. The wreckage was disposed of years ago; components could have been beneath specification, wrongly fitted, or even omitted entirely during construction, but we have no way to know. I’m not discounting the report as useless, but it seems extremely unlikely that it can conclusively prove much beyond NIST’s report being wrong, and Chandler already did that.

        If you’re really that interested in WTC7 for its own sake, there are two other major engineering investigations that were done for a court case and its appeal. You’ll probably need to read them anyway, because the earlier UAF work made extensive reference to them.

  • #47012 Reply


    That link showed the twin towers. Once you look at them, their sheer size, the idea they would completely disintegrate into dust in seconds after being hit by a plane becomes absurd.

    • #47013 Reply


      “..and if they’d been ten times as tall, they’d have been ten times as strong; any kid who’s built a tower of blocks knows it’s the short ones that are difficult, they just get easier the taller you build them. That’s why bungalows are more expensive than skyscrapers.”

      The taller they come, the harder they fall.

      C’mon Dave, tell us what you really think; you know your mates will never quote you on it.

    • #47014 Reply


      Dave, each of the Twin Towers was like a hundred cheap supermarkets stacked in a vertical frame, each one’s heavy concrete floor laid on the fragile corrugated roof of the one below. The top ten of them all fell onto the rest below, smashing through floor after floor until all that churning rubble pulverised itself against the ground.

    • #47030 Reply


      Well they didn’t completely disintegrate into dust. What of the thousands of tons of steel and concrete removed to landfill or re-cycled?

      • #47040 Reply


        And don’t forget the passport!

        • #47043 Reply


          Truther logic – “Looks like a passport being handed in was a set-up. Therefore, claims that the Towers turned to dust are true, so an energy weapon must have been fired at the towers. Therefore all the photos showing rubble and steel wreckage were faked, so there must have been an overarching conspiracy of almost supernatural power. Which proves that the passport was indeed definitely seeded, and anyone who seems unconvinced by all this must be an agent.”

  • #47017 Reply


    As you can clearly see they aren’t collapsing as you suggest but disintegrating/exploding into dust at an even speed despite the strength of the towers (to hold what’s above) increasing towards the base. At least those blaming “direct energy weapons” are less audacious than you, as they can’t be seen (requires an act of faith to believe) whereas your theory defies us to believe our very eyes.

    • #47028 Reply


      “…at an even speed despite the strength of the towers (to hold what’s above) increasing towards the base”

      Gerry, would you go over these points? Dave thinks I’ve sold my soul.

      “disintegrating/exploding into dust at an even speed […],your theory defies us to believe our very eyes”

      No, trust your own eyes; there are plenty of images. The vast majority of dust welled up as the internal collapses pulverised themselves against the ground. The dust spread all over Manhattan, leaving larger wreckage full of rubble, and sections of steel with all the bolts wrenched out. Just what you’d expect.

      Look Dave, there are millions of things that you or I might have difficulty imagining like photosynthesis, DNA replication, nuclear fusion, supernova or plate tectonics, but if that meant they didn’t happen there’d be no life on Earth.

      • #47029 Reply


        Nullius in verba.

      • #47031 Reply


        There are two high tides each day, and it’s “hard to imagine” how the Moon’s gravitation could raise the one on the side of Earth furthest from the Moon. So can we conclude that for hundreds of years, the global scientific community have been lying to everyone to conceal the Truth that really, tides are raised by SPECTRE’s energy beams?

  • #47032 Reply


    Kempe, while we’re all waiting for Gerry and David Chandler, what do you make of my “the fire-fighters did it” theory? It could help explain various odd things that people said, as well as FEMA’s unusual steel samples and WTC7’s remarkably orderly collapse.

    • #47041 Reply


      A gold medal for gall!

      • #47044 Reply


        Truther argument method: “…and when you’ve run out of even illogical arguments, always round off with a derogatory imputation.”

  • #47045 Reply


    Dave, are you the same commenter as on the 9/11 Post, who described the collapses of the Twin Towers as “Jewish lightning”, and recommended The Jewish Plot against America by Victor Thorn, author of “The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie”?

    • #47062 Reply


      If someone in a month long relationship takes out very expensive life insurance on their new partner and adds a clause adding a special bonus pay-out if their partner dies in a freak accident a month before they die in a freak accident, it would look suspicious, especially if they did it twice!

      • #47066 Reply


        I’ll take that as a yes, then. You consider a Holocaust denier a reliable source of facts, presumably.

        Whoever leased the WTC site would have been required to take out insurance. A clause in the insurance contract required Silverstein to rebuild in the event of payout, and rebuild he did. You can show me that he rebuilt for much less than the payout, can you?

        • #47069 Reply


          What is a “holocaust denier” and what is “Jewish lightning”?

          • #47078 Reply


            Please answer my question first; are you the same commenter as that Dave on the 9/11 Post?

          • #47087 Reply


            No the onus is on you to answer first, because you are saying views on one subject invalidate views on another subject, so need to explain the other subject, otherwise you shouldn’t mention it.

          • #47088 Reply


            “you are saying views on one subject invalidate views on another subject”

            No, you rolled up here and launched immediately into character assassination with your insinuation that someone had sold their soul, and then directly accused me of audacity and gall. You’re just getting back what you repeatedly put out.

            The Twin Towers didn’t turn to dust, and their floor systems were not stronger lower down than further up, so there is no need for me to invalidate your on-topic contributions; I just want it to be clear what sort of person is hurling insults at me.

          • #47095 Reply


            More gall!

  • #47071 Reply


    9/11/Silvio, thanks for starting this thread.

    Gerry, thanks for your expert input. Delighted to have you here.

    Everybody else, please don’t turn this into a slagging match. If you’re interested in the truth, excercise restraint, don’t respond to baiting.

    We’ve been waiting for the release of this UAF report for 4 years. I was beginning to think the prof had been nobbled. Now here it is, facts, figures, opensource modelling, and devastating conclusions. This is hard science. It can not be dismissed as unsubstantiated theorising. The authors show ‘their workings’. They say, “This is how we arrived at the conclusion that NIST is wrong. If you disagree, demonstrate where our reasoning is wrong.”

    I look forward to the next few months.

    • #47079 Reply


      Gerry, I second Node’s welcome; I hope you return soon, and I hope David Chandler will join us too.

      Node, beware of, er, over-optimism*. As Mike Ruppert warned so long ago, the building wreckage is no longer available, and we should be on our guard against assuming that WTC7 entirely fulfilled its specification in the design documents. Further (and I’m unlikely to read the UAF report in detail) I wonder if their simulation correctly predicts the observed asymmetry ie. the early collapse of one end of the penthouse.

      (* I’m not sure that “optimism” is the right word for actually hoping that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives throughout the buildings).

      • #47086 Reply


        Removing the debris/evidence from a crime scene is itself a criminal act and the fact it happened and without prosecution is evidence of official complicity in both crimes.

        • #47090 Reply


          Circumstantial evidence that something was hidden tells us nothing about what was hidden.

          The Port Authority disposed of the wreckage. The Port Authority also authorised the, er, rather unconventional WTC designs to be built, and after the collapses tried to withhold the plans from the engineering investigations. The New York building industry is also rife with corruption. Demolition mythology actually supplied a convenient decoy for them.

  • #47089 Reply


    No debris was needed to compile the UAF, otherwise they wouldn’t have compiled it, they just needed details of the structure concerned.

    To say you need the debris to prove the building didn’t fall at free fall speed into its own footprint due to shoddy construction is just the usual gall from Clark, worthy of another medal to add to his, you can’t say it was free fall because it was a second out!

    • #47091 Reply


      You again demonstrate your own lack of understanding. g is a rate of acceleration whereas free-fall is a physical condition. To give a trivially obvious example, a bicycle may accelerate horizontally at g, but no one would therefore insist that it was in free-fall.

      And the units of g aren’t seconds.

    • #47092 Reply


      “UAF […] just needed details of the structure concerned”

      And they can’t get that without the debris, because the plans may not have been adhered to. Such malpractice is actually fairly common in the building industry.

      • #47096 Reply


        But not to the scale you propose and with such remarkable timing. Find Jesus!

        • #47097 Reply


          There’s nothing odd about the timing (sigh); WTC7 had been hit by the collapse of WTC1. It had a gash that spanned multiple floors, it was bulging, leaning and burning. Fire-fighters were measuring its deformation, “up on the transit”. If there was ever a time for a weakness to show up, that was it.

          I didn’t propose any scale. I said I thought a team working with the fire-fighters might have hastily demolished WTC7 on the semi-quiet, so that rescue operations could be resumed in the exclusion zone around it.

          • #47477 Reply


            I was mystified by Dave’s “find Jesus!” remark at the time, but further down the thread I understood that he meant that I should overcome the Jewishness he sees in me.

      • #47128 Reply


        Clark said ”And they can’t get that without the debris, because the plans may not have been adhered to. Such malpractice is actually fairly common in the building industry.”

        If such malpractice was fairly common, then it begs the question why other buildings of this type have not come down in a similar fashion. Maybe it’s just a New York thing?

        • #47131 Reply


          It’s common because they can usually get away with it. Once the building is complete you can’t tell whether components were missing when the concrete was poured, and not many buildings get hit by aircraft or whatever.

          But yes, it does happen, eg. the Ronan Point collapse in 1968:

          Further construction defects had led to the whole weight supported by each wall panel being supported by the panel beneath by two steel rods, instead of being spread evenly along the panel, leading to extremely high stresses that the concrete was not designed to withstand.

          – The strengthening brackets which had been fitted during the rebuilding were in many cases not properly attached, since they were fastened to hollow-core slabs, and in many cases they had been bolted only to the thin concrete surrounding the cores, which was inadequate to take the stress.

          – The concern […] eventually led the council to evacuate the building, and then to demolish it in 1986 in a forensic manner (rather than, for example, using explosives). When this was done, the extent of the defects found shocked even some of the activists, such as the architect Sam Webb, who had been lobbying for years that the building was unsafe.

  • #47102 Reply


    “The 9/11 Commission and its final report are still held up as the final word on the events of September 11, 2001. But there’s just one problem: Six out of the 10 commissioners have admitted that the commission was misled, stymied, hampered by conflicts of interest, and, ultimately, forced to participate in a politically-motivated cover-up. This is the story of the doubtful 9/11 commissioners.”

    the corbettreport

    • #47106 Reply


      Yes as Christopher Bollyn says the authors of the crime reveal themselves as they block investigations into the crime.

    • #47116 Reply


      Have any readers here actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, or any part of it? I haven’t.

      It is not widely realised that much of the 9/11 Commission Report was derived from interrogation under torture:

      …441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations. Moreover, most of the information in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Report came from the interrogations. Those chapters cover the initial planning for the attack, the assembling of terrorist cells, and the arrival of the hijackers in the U.S. In total, the Commission relied on more than 100 interrogation reports produced by the CIA. The second round of interrogations sought by the Commission involved more than 30 separate interrogation sessions.
      – Four of them [detainees] said they gave information only to stop the torture. Although details were redacted in all the detainees’ testimony, the tribunal permitted the inclusion of a letter from a detainee’s father in one case, citing what he claimed was American torture of his son. In the letter placed in the record, Ali Khan claims his son, Majid, underwent extensive torture before and after interrogation sessions.

      – “The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep.

      – “When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read. But then it continued when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods in Karachi that he did not know.”

      I shan’t bother with a link as I know you lot are only interested in collapsing buildings.

      • #47120 Reply


        The guilty torturing the innocent to absolve themselves of blame!

  • #47132 Reply


    Gerry, September 6 at 07:10 (#46919):

    “The North tower collapsed in about 13.8s total which equates to around 2/3 freefall, total freefall being approcx 9.2s for 1365ft. Still way too fast.”

    Myself, September 6 at 16:04 (#46949)

    “Yes, the internal collapse accelerated at around 2/3 of g, so 1/3 of the entire potential energy of the structure (before collapse) was available for destruction of materials. Convert that to TNT equivalent and you can see that it was way more than enough.”

    I agree that the collapse was much too fast to be consistent with Bažant’s “crush down then crush up” model. But Bažant’s model isn’t consistent with observation of either the collapse or the wreckage; it’s an interesting theoretical exercise, but it isn’t remotely realistic and it was never intended to be.

    Bažant’s model is the failure mode that demands the most energy, bending every vertical column in the building. But when things break in the real world, they do so at the weakest points rather than the strongest, ie. they break in whatever way requires least energy. In the Twin Towers’ collapses, this was cascade destruction of/through the floor systems.

  • #47139 Reply


    Here’s a 29 minute video by news cameraman Mark LaGanga. Don’t bother if you prefer two-second sound-bites on a loop or eyes in pyramids overdubbed with a male voice choir; this doesn’t even have commentary:

    Starting just after the collapse of WTC2, he walks into the disaster zone, enters the damaged and mostly evacuated WTC7, and then takes some shots of WTC1 burning. He videos most of the collapse of WTC2 before getting caught in the dust cloud.

  • #47140 Reply


    He videos most of the collapse of WTC2 WTC1 before…


  • #47141 Reply


    In this video you can see the masses of wreckage – which didn’t exist, some Truthers tell me, because the buildings were “turned to dust”. At 03:15 you can see how insubstantial the Twin Towers’ perimeter structure looked once deprived of the illusion of solidity provided by the building before it was damaged. And these are just a few of the lower floors, yet some Truthers repeatedly insist that this structure could have supported itself upright to over ten times the height of the remnant shown, without lateral bracing from the floor systems.

  • #47142 Reply


    The expression the towers turned to dust is accurate, but you’re right some of it didn’t turn to dust, but reinforced iron, concrete and steel doesn’t turn to dust due to a shoddy build but can due to high grade explosives and the picture is an example of what material had been turned to dust.

    • #47149 Reply


      Even in a normal civilian controlled demolition, explosive or vérinage, most of the dust is produced by the material crushing itself as the collapse hits ground.

      The WTC buildings produced more dust because the buildings were much taller than any buildings that have been imploded. There was further for the rubble to fall, so it picked up more speed, more kinetic energy, which was all dissipated in the final crush.

      There’s really no mystery. When ore or rubble is deliberately turned to dust it is done by crushing it in a mill. This process has been studied thoroughly and is well quantified. The same equations have been applied to the Twin Towers’ collapses, and the amount of dust produced was normal.

      • #47150 Reply


        Except there was nothing being crushed, it was just exploding into dust, but as you rightly say some of the 220 stories of reinforced, concrete iron and steel didn’t turn to dust!

        • #47151 Reply


          Just watch the collapse videos. You can see the descending, accelerating front of dusty air ejected by the avalanche of concrete floor systems confined within the perimeter columns. It races ahead of the second wave of collapse (namely the toppling of perimeter sections), and the huge dust cloud wells out as it reaches ground. All just what you’d expect from progressive collapse of the concrete floor systems, all just as predicted by Newton’s laws.

          • #47152 Reply


            God help us!

  • #47153 Reply

    Skye Mull

    There’s a lot of theorising here by someone who is clearly not a structural or civil engineer.

    • #47157 Reply


      Observation mostly.

      The odd bits of theory can easily be checked. Which are you worried about?

  • #47179 Reply


    Meanwhile, solid evidence of foreknowledge and obstruction of efforts to prevent the attacks gets lost by those fixated on the fact that the towers fell down after high speed impacts onto their structures. How many “truthers” know about Alec Station, Able Danger, Coleen Rowley, the NRO “plane into building” exercise during the attacks or any other evidence of complicity not related to the (false) claims of demolition?

  • #47196 Reply


    Not surprised it’s gone quiet Clark, the disparaging generalisations about truthers is fairly offensive/ annoying to those of us who you would call a truther but are only following the facts and evidence. I define myself simply as someone who understands freefall.

    Re your firefighters blew up WTC7 on the day, it sounds entirely impossible to me. Have you any fire fighters/ CD experts that consider it plausible? More importantly, does this mean you accept CD as the only reasonable explanation for WTC7’s collapse? That at least is progress.

    • #47200 Reply


      I think the reason it’s gone quiet is that I can actually do simple physics.

      You seem to have been convinced by Truther websites that you “understand free-fall”. Whether induced by explosives or not, hardly any material in a progressive collapse is in free-fall overall, because it is in constant random collisions with itself; that’s what makes the characteristic roaring sound. Sound is a form of energy, making that energy unavailable for acceleration of materials. The sites you seem to have frequented have been very selective in the aspects of the physics that they mention.

      There are videos on YouTube comparing the descent of WTC7 side-by-side with multiple known controlled demolitions. Overall, scaled to occupy the same space on screen, the collapses indeed look very similar. But look more carefully – many storeys of WTC7 are the same height on screen as a few storeys of each other building, yet they fall side-by-side. This tells us that even known demolitions accelerate at less than the acceleration due to gravity.

      Maybe the things you read on Truther websites are less than true.

    • #47202 Reply


      Military engineers have frequently demolished buildings in hours. It’s one of their main jobs.

      It was the fire-fighters who seemed to have foreknowledge of the destruction of WTC7. Are you accusing the fire-fighters of pre-rigging the Twin Towers as well, and thereby murdering hundreds of their own colleagues? See here.

  • #47197 Reply


    Being generous Clark’s role is to self-skunk the blog to stop it being banned by the deep state and this explains his regular black is white observations, but has a personal interest because he believes controlled demolition equates to blaming the ‘Jews’, as opposed those specifically responsible.

    • #47199 Reply


      The book you recommended by the Holocaust denier specifically named Judaism itself as the cause of 9/11. I pointed that out and you defended it. Your fellow Truthers refused to acknowledge your anti-Semitism. Instead, they accused me of fabricating it to “protect the official story”.

      • #47201 Reply


        And if either of us are “skunking the blog” it’s you, Dave. It was you that posted the “Jewish lightning” comment, deleted by moderators for its anti-Semitism. I had to look it up. It is slang for setting fire to one’s own building in order to claim the insurance. You confirmed your stance that the Twin Towers were demolished for an insurance fraud above.

        It is an anti-Semitic canard; “Jews will do anything for money, even mass murder, and there are any number of other Jews who will conspire to help them in perfect secrecy”.

      • #47206 Reply


        I don’t blame a religion for 9/11, although some blame Christianity for the Holocaust! Do you?

    • #47212 Reply


      “…to stop it being banned by the deep state”

      This just drips with paranoia; there are dozens of sites pushing demolition nonsense but they don’t get “banned”. YouTube’s infested with the stuff and YouTube’s owned by Google, yet I hear that Google are the “deep state”. And don’t pretend it’s a coincidence that you lot all keep making the same half-dozen non-points as each other, and generally in exactly the same words – you all get it pre-cooked off the ‘net.

      • #47215 Reply


        That was a generous reason for your black is white observations, but as you rule out self-skunking (do you also deny you are trying to undermine and/or get the thread removed?) the second reason becomes most likely! If so do you think its anti-German to blame Germans for the Holocaust and think criticising Hitler is “anti-Germanism”?

        • #47222 Reply


          “do you also deny you are trying to undermine and/or get the thread removed?”

          That idea was proposed by the commenter called Node.

          If I wanted the thread to die, the easiest way would be for me to stop commenting. You lot would reaffirm your agreement about theatrical explosives (while studiously ignoring the contradictions between your various ‘theories’) and then lose interest.

          History confirms this; if you look through the dates on the 9/11 Post, you’ll find two long gaps after the WordPress software had closed comments automatically because no one had commented in a long time. On both occasions it was me, as a moderator, who reopened comments.

          So your personal accusation against me is not merely unfounded, but directly contradicted by facts. But that’s typical of those known as “Truthers”.

  • #47204 Reply


    so you’ve determined that I have arrived at my conclusions by being convinced by “truther websites”. Sigh.

    The sort of websites I found convincing is those where arguments are made by the likes of Gerry above, so thanks for re-confirming my belief that this thread is filled with unnecessary snidey shit. So I’m out.

  • #47211 Reply


    “We heard that the Twin Towers were demolished. We know it looks a lot like they failed at the damaged zones causing the tops to smash the bottoms, but it could have been a special, timed, sequenced, fireproofed and remote-controlled demolition rig made to look that way. WTC7 looks somewhat like a conventional controlled demolition, therefore it was a controlled demolition, therefore it was rigged weeks in advance, therefore the Twin Towers could have been rigged in advance too, but with a couple of these special, theatrical, damaged-zone-down demolition rigs. Three thousand people in the world have signed up to this, but all the world’s universities and engineering associations are pawns of the conspiracy.”

    I call this spectacularly wishful thinking.

    • #47216 Reply


      What you display there is the role of the religious inquisitor searching for and seeking to crush the first sign of heresy.

      The twin towers was obvious controlled demolition (meaning brought down with explosives), but admittedly viewers were bamboozled and told something different, stories about planes, hijackings etc, which most accepted on trust, as they were marched into war, which you repeat.

      But WTC7 is different, because it wasn’t hit by a plane and fell in the afternoon with little public knowledge of the event. So when this event is quietly scrutinised its without the ‘heat’ surrounding the twin towers and so can be looked at dispassionately by reasonable people.

      And that why you have until recently described it as a sympathy collapse and now (almost as far-fetched) rigged to collapse on the same day as a national disaster was unfolding, rather than allow the truth of WTC7 ignite the chain of heresy you describe.

      • #47223 Reply


        And I do all this because I have an infantile need to trust Western governmental authority, or because I’m a member of the conspiracy, right?

        Odd, really, since I have stated my suspicion that 9/11 was a Gladio B / covert NATO / arms manufacturers’ operation. So maybe you’re paid or enthralled by them and that’s why you’re trying to smear me? This accusation has at least as much evidence as yours, ie. it’s utter bunk.

        • #47229 Reply


          You say you have suspicions of foul play, but can you narrow it done a bit more?

          • #47244 Reply


            Grief, any meaningful answer to this would be ridiculously long.

            In short, I suspect a conspiracy within the industrial-military-secrecy complex. National boundaries are mostly irrelevant; 9/11 looks as though powerful murderous authoritarian psychopaths arranged and facilitated an attack upon Earthly life itself. It was supremely effective. As humanity entered the new millennium, neoliberal degradation of everything biological (including human quality of life) was the most urgent issue by far. Openness and cooperation were (and remain) the most necessary responses, but 9/11 successfully generated hitherto unseen levels of conflict and suspicion.

            Sorry; I’m busy now. More on this topic later.

          • #47251 Reply


            The 9/11 attacks themselves were foul play.

            I think the reports of the various investigations were broadly correct, ie. hijackers managed to take control of aircraft and crash them in suicide attacks, but the hijackers couldn’t have succeeded without help from within US authorities. I wouldn’t trust the details, eg. the purported identities of the hijackers, or which of them were purportedly the pilots. I think it’s very likely that they were indeed “Islamic” extremists, because these are the people who can be induced to perform suicide attacks.

            But here’s the first deception, which is that Wahhabism is a form of Islam. Wahhabism is the state “religion” of the Gulf Monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia, and it is an abuse and a perversion of religion, just as Judaism is abused and perverted by some in Israel (including by some very prominent rabbis) to indoctrinate extreme nationalism and hatred of non-Jewish Middle Easterners. For decades, brutal Wahhabist indoctrination has been central to projection of power by the al Saud family. Religion by its nature (faith) is vulnerable to perversion by state power, and it has happened time after time in history; the first half of Old Testament is pretty much a manual of it.

            The second deception is that the hijackers were “al Qaeda”, and forcing such confessions seems to have been the major objective of the torture programme. But who is a member of “al Qaeda” and who isn’t? And what is “al Qaeda” anyway? Answering these questions requires background knowledge and careful consideration of the context, all of which has been glossed over or more usually entirely omitted by both government and media.

            Sorry, I’m only just getting started here, but it is time I went to bed.

          • #47257 Reply


            or for a lay down!

          • #47275 Reply


            Sorry, I seem to have missed the rational basis for your ridicule, Dave. Fancy that.

  • #47259 Reply


    Everybody has an opinion on what happened on 9/11, but I suggest some opinions carry more weight than others. A New York fire department, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, were amongst first responders, lost 2 firefighters on the day and many more are suffering chronic health effects. In July 2019, all five commissioners of the fire dept approved a resolution to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11, claiming …

    … the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day.

    Why should their opinions carry more weight?

    # They are experts on fires and structural design.
    # They were in the ‘privileged’ position of hearing and seeing the events of 9/11 close up, with their own senses.
    # Afterwards they were able to compare and share such information with other professional first responder groups.
    # They are aware that the careers of other professionals who have similarly spoken out have suffered yet they have still spoken out.

    • #47260 Reply


      Frankly, I don’t believe this. Something dubious has to have happened here; it’s from A&E9/11″Truth” so that’s entirely possible. I expect that it is some kind of selective quote, or misquote, or the “all five commissioners of the fire dept” are not what that phrase seems to imply.

      Node, care to post more detail before I trace this back to source myself?

      Here is what senior fire and safety professionals said at the time:

    • #47262 Reply


      The Franklin Square and Munson Fire District does exist, and it has a website:

      There seems to be nothing about this “historic event” on their website. It even has a news section, and a memorial page for a fire-fighter of their district who was killed on 9/11, yet there is nothing about this. Has it already been retracted by any chance?

    • #47263 Reply


      From the Franklin Square Munson Fire District’s Facebook account:

      “Due to the recent vote by the Board of Fire Commissioners in regards to their resolution on launching a new 9/11 investigation, the department has received multiple questions and emails on the topic. The opinions of the Franklin Square and Munson Board of Fire Commissioners does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Chiefs, Officers and Members of the Fire Department.

      – Please direct all questions about the resolution to Commissioner Chris Gioia 516-488-1858 Ext 141″

      Due to the recent vote by the Board of Fire Commissioners in regards to their resolution on launching a new 9/11…

      Publiée par Franklin Square Munson Fd sur Lundi 29 juillet 2019

  • #47269 Reply


    The Franklin Square and Munson Fire District 9/11 Resolution

    Whereas, the attacks of September 11, 2001, are inextricably and forever tied to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department;

    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, while operating at the World Trade Center in New York City, firefighter Thomas J. Hetzel, badge #290 of Hook and Ladder Company #1, Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department of New York, was killed in performance of his duties, along with 2,976 other emergency responders and civilians;

    Whereas, members of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department were called upon to assist in the subsequent rescue and recovery operations and cleanup of the World Trade Center site, afflicting many of them with life-threatening illnesses as a result of breathing the deadly toxins present at the site;

    Whereas, the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District recognizes the significant and compelling nature of the petition before the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York reporting un-prosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and calling upon the United States Attorney to present that petition to a Special Grand Jury pursuant to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. SS 3332(A);

    Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;

    Whereas, the victims of 9/11, their families, the people of New York City, and our nation deserve that every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, be investigated to the fullest and that every person who was responsible face justice;

    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District fully supports a comprehensive federal grand jury investigation and prosecution of every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as any and all efforts by other government entities to investigate and uncover the full truth surrounding the events of that horrible day.

    Feel free to do your own research.

    Please don’t involve me in your discussions with other posters, as you did above.

    • #47273 Reply


      “Please don’t involve me in your discussions with other posters, as you did above.”

      Do you deny that it was your suggestion that I was trying to get the 9/11 Post closed, despite the fact that I repeatedly reopened it? Both Dave and Paul Barbara have leaped onto that bandwagon. So it’s OK for you to impute motive; you raise no objection when other commenters use your slur against me, yet you object to me pointing out that you were the source. Cool.

  • #47274 Reply


    I don’t want to discuss anything but 9/11 on this thread.

    You said you didn’t believe my post at 13.42. Now your own research proves it’s true. Care to now address my point, which is that the opinion of a group of fire experts who witnessed the events of 9/11 from close-up, can not be lightly dismissed?

    • #47277 Reply


      I wrote: ‘“all five commissioners of the fire dept” are not what that phrase seems to imply’, and it looks like I was right. These are administrators; it seems that one of them was a litigation manager and another a pharmacist.

      As I posted above, the Chiefs, Officers and Members of the Fire Department name Chris Gioia as the driving force behind this. He really was a fire chief, and present at 9/11. However, he didn’t come to this conclusion at the time. It was years later that he was fooled by A&E9/11″Truth” peddling Chandler’s misapplied physics argument:

      “Then I’m like, all right, but you know, I’m going through. I’m surfing the web, and then I hit Architects and Engineers website, and this website had it all together, and it presented it in a logical fashion, yeah, all right, this is what happened. Then they back it up with professional people, and they… backed up by eyewitness testimony and how certain things are just not possible. You can’t suspend the laws of physics. Gravity only operates downward. It doesn’t operate from outward. The laws of science most certainly do apply. The laws of the building, the way the buildings were constructed, that applies. If you put theories to the test, which they have, then you prove that it’s not really a theory anymore, or you eliminate things that just are impossible to happen.

      – That coalesced in my mind. Then after, I would say, two or three years of doing research and digging, digging through testimony, and looking at pictures, and hitting various websites, it pretty much was obvious that the official government narrative is not really what happened that day. It’s absolutely far from the truth, and it’s not a good thing.”

      In other words, Gioia formed his opinion in much the same way as other Truthers; it was something he read on the web.

      Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Loch Ness Monster and/or sea serpents — not just an iceberg and failure of the bulkheads — caused the destruction of the Titanic, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day


      • #47278 Reply


        From an interview on A&E9/11. Gioia:

        “You can run again for another five-year term. You could actually stay in office. The other four commissioners have been in office 10, 15, maybe 20 years, so I’m pretty much the new kid on the block. The other members… We have another ex-chief, who’s sitting on the board, as well. He was chief of the department back in the late ’80s or the early ’90s. That would actually be Commissioner Malloy. Then you have Commissioner Saltzman, who is a member of Engine Company Number Three. You have Commissioner Lyons, who is a member of Engine Company Number Two. Commissioner Joseph Torregrossa, he’s the chairman, and he’s also a member of Engine Company Number Two.”

        Three serving fire-fighters and a former chief.

        Gioia says that he was less than two miles away. He heard the first impact, he watched through a surveying instrument like a telescope, he saw the fire and damage, and he saw the blast of the second impact. But then he drove home, where his wife told him that both towers had collapsed. He then saw it on TV.

        Have any of the others given interviews or anything? Could do with

        * * * * * * *

        Node, since you’re here, shouldn’t we try discussing the UAF report? I seem to remember reading a bit of the draft, maybe a year ago (?), and it referred to a court case and an appeal between, er, the Con Edison electricity company and the Port Authority? Or maybe their insurance companies? And the engineering reports submitted to court. Didn’t Con Edison win, but then the Port Authority got it overturned on appeal?

      • #47279 Reply


        Really? You made up a sarcastic ‘quote.’ How does that advance the discussion?

  • #47280 Reply


    “Three serving fire-fighters and a former chief.”
    I don’t understand your point. You are reinforcing mine. Namely : experienced firefighters who were present on 9/11 don’t believe the official narrative.

    Clark September 11, 2019 at 09:56 — “Node … I’m unlikely to read the UAF report in detail …”
    Clark September 19, 2019 at 22:10 — “Node … shouldn’t we try discussing the UAF report?”

    er…. no.

    • #47282 Reply


      So far, we have one bloke who saw the Twin Towers on fire, didn’t see them collapse, and years later discovered A&E9/11″Truth” and, like millions of others, has believed the dozen or so phrases they keep repeating ever since. His company have said he doesn’t talk for them, and we’ve yet to hear from his four fellow local commissioners, apart from a single ‘aye’ each.

      So at one end we have a claim of breaking Newton’s laws which doesn’t hold up. At the other we’ve got some rather minor fire department administrators with whatever technical authority they carry. It’s pretty thin really, isn’t it?

      No I haven’t yet read the UAF report in detail, so why not try and find something to interest me? Haven’t you read it at all? I thought you said you wanted to discuss this stuff? A bit too objective maybe? You feel more comfortable projecting a handful of characters who say what you want as authority figures?

  • #47283 Reply


    OK, let’s see what we DO agree on. I’ll make some claims, you tell me if you agree or disagree.
    (1) The 5 commissioners have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.
    (2) Some if not all of the 5 commissioners were present at ground zero on 9/11.
    (3) The 5 commissioners personally know many other first responders.
    (4) You have no special knowledge of fires, were thousands of miles away when it happened, have never spoken to any eye-witnesses, and have ‘learned’ what you know from the internet and TV.

    • #47290 Reply


      You haven’t established (1), (2) or (3). (3) seems likely but irrelevant, since Gioia’s own serving teams have already disowned his position. There is already some evidence against (1) and (2). I posted all this earlier.

      (4) is close, though I learned physics at school, university, and as a personal interest 🙂

  • #47284 Reply


    The facts about 9/11 seem to be lost in the very details of discussions about the physics of collapse of buildings. The facts are damning enough. Planes were highjacked and two hit the twin towers, a third hit the pentagon and a fourth went down in a field. There was a serious lapse in security both in allowing this to happen and in the lack of remedial measures in the heart of the US establishment this heavily populated and surveilled area. No officials were castigated., reprimanded or lost their job. The whole incident was then used to invade Afghanistan and the. Iraq under false pretences with major loss of life and constant turmoil in the ME. No conspiracies there, and no consequences for the authorities. Meanwhile people on both sides of this discourse who or really on the same anti war side are tearing each other apart for the sake of proving the unprovable with no chance of succeeding because the evidence has been ?deliberately destroyed. This controversy is the utmost distraction.
    Meanwhile KSA oil installations are bombed. The Houthis claim they have done it but to distract from the fact that there has been another major security lapse, we will be sold another war this time with Iran by putting the blame, without evidence, on that country. It we are still busy discussing the unprovable and tearing each other apart.

    • #47286 Reply


      “… for the sake of proving the unprovable with no chance of succeeding …”

      I believe the UAF report which is the subject of this thread does prove that at least one of these buildings were brought down by explosive demolition. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

      There is no plausible scenario whereby one building was pre-rigged for demolition while the other two were destroyed by planes, so the whole official narrative fails.

      As you say, this event was used as an excuse to justify slaughter on a global scale. It is important that history exposes the lie, or they will use the same trick again on our grandchildren.

      • #47289 Reply


        “I believe the UAF report which is the subject of this thread does prove that at least one of these buildings were brought down by explosive demolition”

        And that’s all this is; a belief. Would it have been possible to design a structure such that it would collapse like WTC7 did? Of course. To what extent did WTC7’s structure resemble such a structure? Well, quite a bit actually, with its core suspended on a truss straddling a major electrical installation. Can UAF prove that the truss couldn’t or didn’t fail? Not without the debris.

        “There is no plausible scenario whereby one building was pre-rigged for demolition while the other two were destroyed by planes…”

        Eh? What makes that so implausible? I can get around it just by acting a bit more paranoid than your typical conspiracy theorist. WTC7 could have been pre-rigged just to raise false suspicions of WTCs 1 and 2 being pre-rigged! Genius! Get a vocal minority barking up a non-existent tree, throw the hounds off the scent and taint any putative Truth Movement, and all at a fraction of the risk of being exposed. WTCs 1 and 2 would have required special, timed, sequenced, theatrical rigs to simulate top-down collapse, and without the sound of sequenced explosives, both of which would have had to work perfectly first time without a rehearsal, and both having to initiate at the damaged zones where damage to charges and control systems was most likely. Big ask! Much easier to let WTCs 1 and 2 collapse as they would anyway, but bring WTC7 down in the routine, bottom-up demolition fashion, with seven hours or so to patch up any damage to the rig. Since WTC7 was half the size of either WTCs 1 or two, that’s around a fifth as many people using the buildings who might notice preparations in progress. Or even better, get a military or ex-military team to rig it after the attacks, and if you get found out you can say that you just brought down a damaged building for safety reasons; plausibly deniable. I can see why you’re not a planner for the NWO.

        Really, Truthers are remarkably disappointing. The demolition scenarios seem quite imaginative until you realise that they all come pre-cooked off the ‘web, and the Truthers don’t actually apply any imagination of their own.

        “…so the whole official narrative fails”

        That’s a remarkably narrow interpretation of the “official narrative”. It basically reduces the official narrative to “WTCs 1 and 2 weren’t pre-rigged with explosives”. But that does seem to be what most Truthers mean by “the official narrative”.

        • #47293 Reply


          “And that’s all this is; a belief.”
          And that’s your belief.

          “Eh? What makes that so implausible? I can get around it just by …”
          … then you describe an implausible scenario. You prove my point again.

          “That’s a remarkably narrow interpretation of the “official narrative”. It basically reduces the official narrative to “WTCs 1 and 2 weren’t pre-rigged with explosives”. But that does seem to be what most Truthers mean by “the official narrative”.”
          Er, yes, that is a pretty fair summary of the official narrative. I just don’t understand what you’re getting at half the time.

          • #47295 Reply


            “And that’s your belief”

            No, it’s a fact. Had WTC7 been pulled down by massive internal springs or winches, the UAF report wouldn’t be able to prove otherwise. Had WTC7’s structure deviated from its plans, UAF couldn’t prove otherwise.

            You a New Ager? There is more than belief.

            “yes, that is a pretty fair summary of the official narrative”

            What stunning ignorance! I suppose the 9/11 Commission Report must read simply “WTCs 1 and 2 weren’t pre-rigged with explosives”, over and over again for hundreds of pages.

          • #47297 Reply


            “then you describe an implausible scenario”

            But it’s a fraction as implausible as your own! It requires only one conventional demolition rig, and eliminates two never-seen-before, silenced, theatrical, and indeed unnecessary demolition rigs.

            C’mon, admit it, you still accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”, don’t you? But you won’t discuss the physics in case he’s wrong.

  • #47294 Reply


    Te hee hee. I just realised what Judy Wood’s BBE model is, and Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” doesn’t come out of it well.

    Anyone with a genuine interest in physics, I’d be happy to explain…

  • #47298 Reply


    OK, Clark, I’m going to stop discussing this with you. It’s pointless. Your statements are “hard facts” while mine are “beliefs”. I’m a “New Ager” with “stunning ignorance” while you have a “genuine interest in physics.”

    FFS, you won’t even concede that firemen “have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.”

    • #47306 Reply


      It’s not my fault you can’t tell fact from your own beliefs. All UAF can say is “we tried and failed to replicate NIST’s results, but if we did these things to our simulation, we got these results”. That’s obvious, and it’s a long way from proving explosives.

      ‘FFS, you won’t even concede that firemen “have professional knowledge of fires and how they affect buildings.”’

      You didn’t even bother to check; Franklin Square and Munson Fire District is a volunteer department, and commissioners are administrators. Are commissioners awarded honorary membership of an engine company? Really Node, you’re trying to invest massive authority in these obscure bureaucrats, just because they say what you already believe, even though scientific matters are not decided by authority, and I linked to contradictory statements by far senior fire-fighters who demonstrated their superior knowledge of structures, and Gioia even stated that he got his ideas not from events of the day, not from fire-fighter colleagues, but years later when he browsed into A&E9/11″Truth”, just like most other Truthers. He even said he was trying to get other fire departments on board, contradicting your assertion that other fire-fighters he knows already share his position.

      Grief, Node, your folly is staring you in the face, yet you seem utterly blind to it.

  • #47304 Reply


    Clark’s role is to repeatedly say Black is White, to ensure the debate continues and so it can be said not everyone agrees what really happened. He certainly has a remarkable imagination. I notice his new posting is with XR which is a corporate green sales team promoting the Globalist climate change agenda.

    • #47305 Reply


      The icecaps are melting away Dave.

      The test of science is whether it makes accurate predictions; Hansen testified to congress in 1988. The thirty year lead science gave us has been squandered; for a decade it has been a matter of simple observation. Each year emissions rise, so each year the problem gets harder to fix; it would have been easy if we’d started in 1988.

      • #47307 Reply


        The thing is, the groups that blessed us with 9/11 are the same groups that brought us non-existent WMDs in Iraq, global warming, and global warming denial. If you can’t see the alliance between the various neoconservative bodies – the petrochemical interests and the pro-arms, pro-war interests, between the Right in the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UK – then you can’t be looking properly.

  • #47311 Reply

    The back teeth, up to, fed

    I wonder if someone could have a quiet word with Clark. He is killing this thread. Attempts at debate drown in his verbiage. Most of his posts contain personal insults, contrary to blog rules. Some rather big hitters in the 9/11 scene joined the debate but Clark drove them off with his persistent bickering. He is damaging Craig’s blog in this respect. Of course Clark is entitled to his point of view but not at the expense of everyone else. He doesn’t respond to appeals for restraint. Please do something.

    [ Mod: Thanks for your assessment, Node. However, persistently posting counterarguments doesn’t break any existing rules for commenters. How is this “at the expense of everyone else”? There’s currently no provision for any kind of numerical quota for commenters, nor any scheme for introducing mandatory balance. ]

    • #47316 Reply


      Whatever comment or argument you may have had, about the UAF report or the related topics on this thread, I apologise for averting you from posting them.

    • #47333 Reply


      If you can’t see what Clark is doing to this thread you shouldn’t be a MOD. You wouldn’t let him behave like this on the main thread. So it’s your call. You can continue to tell us what rules there aren’t while ignoring the ones he’s breaking, or you can moderate this thread and allow it to be a valuable resource. It’s good for fuck all if you let it continue like this.

      BTW, I made no effort to hide my IP address because I wanted to give you more options on how to deal with this.

      • #47351 Reply


        “valuable resource” = place where everyone promotes Twin Tower demolition theory, and no one ever questions anyone else.

        “It’s good for fuck all if you let it continue like this” = Twin Tower demolition theory cannot withstand scrutiny, therefore scrutiny must be suppressed.

        If Gerry is your “big hitter”, well, he misconstrued every point I made, and then apparently ran off when he saw that I would counter such devious tactics. And much to my disappointment Chandler never turned up; I expect that Gerry changed his mind about contacting him, because scrutiny is to be avoided in Twin Tower demolition circles.

        • #47356 Reply


          “You can continue to tell us what rules there aren’t while ignoring the ones he’s breaking”

          Look through the thread Node; I countered abuse, from Dave. I did not initiate it. I expect you not to complain about Dave’s abuse, because he supports demolition theory; it really does seem as simple as that.

          I apologise for your feeling that your description of the “official story” displayed “stunning ignorance”. I’m not really responsible for your emotional reactions, but I apologise anyway; I suppose I could have worded it more gently.

  • #47319 Reply


    Interesting to note that William Binney spoke at an event hosted by The Lawyers committee for a 9/11 Enquiry. Craig admires him greatly and has shared the stage with him at several events, including being a guest speaker when Binney was presented with the Sam Adams Award.

    Binney was for many years Technical Director of The National Security Agency (a national-level intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defence) so presumably knows a thing or two about 9/11 not generally available to the public. He’s certainly not someone who can be portrayed as a weak-willed individual conned by the likes of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    • #47323 Reply


      There is clearly much about the 9/11 attacks that we have not heard the truth of, and a more thorough investigation would be a good thing.

      But there is a chasm of difference between “spoke at an event hosted by” and “agrees with every line of”. The Lawyers Committee seems to have been taken in by the popular over-interpretation of Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1”; many people have, and it is not a lawyer’s field.

      It is a shame in so many ways. It confounds critical thinking, it discredits the call for better investigation, it undermines people’s understanding of science and technical discussion, it encourages wild conspiracism which encourages people to distrust a large proportion of everyone they interact with including friends and neighbours, it is divisive, it crowds out political analysis, it takes people’s eyes off the ongoing criminality, and it seems to make most of its adherents extraordinarily blinkered.

      Twin Tower demolition theory is a major liability.

      I hope the Lawyers’ Committee get their new investigation. But if it rejects Twin Tower demolition theory, people like you have already made it clear that you will denounce it as a stitch-up, whereas if it finds for Twin Tower demolition theory in the form promoted by Truthers, a travesty of justice and science will have been committed – the collapses did NOT break Newton’s laws.

      • #47325 Reply


        You have replied to my post but only 2 sentences are relevant to it, so I’ll ignore the rest.

        <i>There is clearly much about the 9/11 attacks that we have not heard the truth of, and a more thorough investigation would be a good thing. But there is a chasm of difference between “spoke at an event hosted by” and “agrees with every line of”. </i>

        Nobody agrees 100% with anybody, so your point is trivial. The actual point is that an intelligent well-informed person, personally known to and respected by someone we both know and respect, chose to support such an event in the full knowledge that his support would be scrutinised. My secondary point is that he cannot be dismissed as naive.

        • #47349 Reply


          “The actual point is that an intelligent well-informed person, personally known to and respected by someone we both know and respect, chose to support such an event…”

          You haven’t shown that Binney supports Twin Tower demolition theory (though you seem to be making the usual Truther effort to make it look that way); Binney may have spoken to try to guide them towards more realistic issues, of which there are many, as you would see if you were to overcome your self-advertised tunnel vision.

          ” …in the full knowledge that his support would be scrutinised.”

          OK, help us scrutinise it then. Got a link for a video of Binney’s speech?

          • #47387 Reply


            You haven’t shown that Binney supports Twin Tower demolition theory

            No, because I didn’t say he supported Twin Tower demolition theory. I said that he supported an event which supported Twin Tower demolition theory. And that is significant for the reasons I explained. So how about addressing what I DID say rather than what I didn’t?

  • #47331 Reply


    So Bill Binney has publicly shown his support for The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization. What is this committee trying to achieve? It has filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York demanding that the U.S. Attorney, pursuant to its duty under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 3332, present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction by explosive demolition of three World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 that resulted in extensive loss of life.

    The US Attorney has agreed to do so.

    The petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition.

    That is what Bill Binney has thrown his weight behind!!

    • #47353 Reply


      I expect Binney is more concerned about Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley and Michael Springmann than he is about demolition theory.

      Of course, most Truthers dismiss the three whistleblowers above as mere “controlled opposition” promoting a “limited hangout”.

      • #47389 Reply


        All completely irrelevant to the point you are replying to. You don’t have to reply to every post, just when you have something relevant to say.

        • #47399 Reply


          Did Binney address the Lawyers’ Committee to support Twin Tower demolition theory?

          No, he was there to deliver his own lecture:

          “Constitutional violations: 9/11 could have been prevented.”

          The constitutional violations he refers to concern detection of the hijackers, and not prevention of any supposed demolition. But the Lawyers’ Committee seems to have become obsessed with barking up the non-existent demolition tree, so another opportunity will be missed.

          • #47402 Reply


            Did Binney address the Lawyers’ Committee to support Twin Tower demolition theory?
            No, he was there to deliver his own lecture:

            Did Binney speak at the Lawyers’ Committee’s event knowing they support Twin Tower demolition theory?

            Did Binney thereby support the Lawyers’ Committee’s event?

            Did Binney thereby tacitly support the Twin Tower demolition theory?

          • #47406 Reply


            Craig Murray gave an interview on an Alex Jones radio show. Does Craig therefore tacitly support all the nonsense Alex Jones promotes? Or was he more likely trying to spread some intelligent thinking?

          • #47408 Reply


            That’s a dishonest analogy. In order to make it applicable to the situation we’re discussing, we would need to imagine that Alex Jones was famous for promoting only one single cause, and that Alex Jones held an event to publicise that cause, and that Craig then chose to speak at that event. In those circumstances, yes, Craig would be tacitly supporting Alex Jones’ cause.

          • #47427 Reply


            “we would need to imagine that Alex Jones was famous for promoting only one single cause”

            But the Lawyers’ Committee didn’t promote only the “one single cause” of Twin Tower pre-rigged demolition. Here’s the archive record of their website:


            In fact they still promote other matters too eg. the FBI lawsuit, but more recently they do seem to have been heavily influenced by A&E9/11″Truth”.

  • #47332 Reply


    There is little prospect of anyone being prosecuted for 9/11 because it was government policy to facilitate the attack for purposes similar to Pear Harbour. In other words it was a political decision not a legal one (as with proroguing of Parliament and declaring war) and in a democracy you can’t punish leaders for war crimes, because democracy requires a peaceful transfer of power to work, and leaders facing prosecution wont surrender power. Only leaders of vanquished nations get prosecuted.

    However eventually truth works its way into the political mainstream and those elected by a knowing electorate change policy accordingly, hence why you got Trump, Brexit and Corbyn.

    • #47335 Reply


      There is little prospect of anyone being prosecuted for 9/11 because it was government policy to facilitate the attack for purposes similar to Pearl Harbour.

      I agree. However they are running out of little boys to stick fingers in holes in dykes. Now that the U.S. Attorney has agreed to “present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction by explosive demolition of three World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 that resulted in extensive loss of life,” a course of action has begun which will require some very heavy-handed hushing up. I don’t see how they can stop the evidence going before the jury, so damage control will need to be along the lines of limiting the publicity it receives (ineffective) or throwing some low-level scapegoats to the lions (dangerous tactic, giving us a taste of blood).

      • #47347 Reply


        I agree which is why the truth has become a “hate crime”.

      • #47373 Reply


        But Node, you have looked ahead along only your pre-decided path, so what happens if you’re wrong? What if the Twin Towers weren’t pre-rigged on every floor with explosives? What if the Lawyers’ Committee are risking all their eggs on a basket that doesn’t exist? Their efforts will be worse than wasted; they’ll have helped to discredit the cause itself – see my second paragraph in my comment above.

        For all you try to have me silenced I’m actually trying to help. Rule out Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” because it is wrong. Then reassess your case.

        • #47390 Reply


          You have mentioned Chandler 22 times on this page. Nobody else has mentioned him at all, except Gerry offering to get him to personally explain to you why you don’t understand what he is saying. If Chandler was so crucial to the demolition theory, we would reference him all the time. But we don’t because there is abundant other evidence that the 3 Towers were explosively demolished. Repeating a straw horse 22 times does not make it any less strawy.

          • #47397 Reply


            But I do understand Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”, and why it doesn’t apply to the collapses of the Twin Towers – which is probably why the Truthers aren’t mentioning it.

            Don’t claim it isn’t important. It is the reason Truthers continually repeat the fallacy that the collapses “break Newton’s laws” (a phrase you have used yourself, and never retracted) unless some external destructive process (eg. explosives) were being applied. It is the only argument for demolition that is specific to the Twin Towers, eg. residues of explosives (if such there were) could have come from anywhere.

            If it were so unimportant you could have denounced it right there. Instead you claimed that I didn’t understand it. That was silly, because there are plenty of others who also understand, and you thereby discredit yourself with them.

          • #47401 Reply


            22 23 times.

            Please follow the basic conventions of debate. You don’t get to decide what I think then get to tell me why the thing you have decided I think is wrong. Not even if you say it 24 times.

            …“break Newton’s laws” [is] a phrase you have used yourself …
            That’s a lie.

          • #47404 Reply


            It may be a mistake, but it is not a lie, Node. As best I remember, it was on the 9/11 Post.

            Whatever; the phrase is continually repeated by Truthers, but I have never known you to set anyone straight. on the matter.

          • #47411 Reply


            It may be a mistake, but it is not a lie, Node. As best I remember, it was on the 9/11 Post.

            It was no mistake, it was a lie of the type that you repeatedly commit. For example you once claimed I had made antisemitic remarks on the 9/11 thread, but when challenged you couldn’t provide a single example. You make up anything that suits you, or that is provocative, depending on your mood, and if it isn’t challenged, you take that as proof of your claim.

            Well I’m challenging you. I’m calling you a liar. It is trivially easy to search the 9/11 thread for that phrase. Find a single example of me saying it, or anything with similar words with the same meaning, and I’ll apologise abjectly and sincerely to you. And if you can’t you’re a liar.

          • #47413 Reply


            Node, do you maintain that after collapse initiation, the collapses of the Twin Towers contravened Newton’s laws unless external means of destruction were applied?

            I don’t remember accusing you of anti-Semitic remarks, and I don’t remember you making any. However, you have been consistently chummy with commenters who have, indeed right now you’re having a go at me but have had not a word of criticism for Dave, who leaped in with abuse and has recommended a Holocaust denier. But then Dave’s a demolition disciple, and supporting each other no matter what is the Truther modus operandi.

          • #47419 Reply


            Really? Your lies are exposed and you just change the subject as if nothing happened? Thought about a career in politics, Clark?

          • #47426 Reply


            Sorry Node, I shouldn’t have written that you used that exact phrase; that was imprecise of me. As I remember it was a quip, an aside, and I’m not even entirely certain that it was you.

            But there’s no need to quibble when you could state your position perfectly clearly right now. Do you maintain that to be consistent with Newton’s laws, collapse progression of the Twin Towers required explosives?

          • #47473 Reply


            Found it:

            Node, The 9/11 Post comment page 100,
            Node, December 4, 2016 at 13:12

            – KOWN : “Node, do you know what changes to building regulations they have introduced, in the wake of Building 7” ….

            – Not aware of any changes in building laws, but they’ve introduced substantial changes to Newton’s laws in response to the collapse.

            So, WTC7 not the Twin Towers, but it was indeed a quip, an aside.

    • #47350 Reply


      Dave, you seem to have a very odd idea of what “government policy” is. Please show me the debates and votes that led to the 9/11 attacks being adopted as US government policy.

      • #47355 Reply


        A rather naïve question as it wasn’t official government policy, but as the esteemed Christopher Bollyn said the villains are identified by the cover-up, such as a belated 9/11 Commission investigation “set-up to fail”.

        • #47357 Reply


          Well I don’t know what “unofficial” government policy is. Maybe they have secret sessions of the House of Representatives, but I haven’t seen a load of corpses of the ones that voted against the attacks.

          I think that Bollyn has little to offer. He does point out some Mossad/Israeli cooperation with and even infiltration of Islamist groups, but that’s from the 1970s / 1980s I think; nothing contemporaneous with 9/11. I’m not saying that didn’t happen regarding 9/11; I’m saying that Bollyn presents no evidence of it relevant to 9/11. He also points out a lot of wealthy US Zionists favouring each other, but that’s hardly news. He seems fond of slow, dramatic zooms onto an oversized still of Larry Silverstein’s face, but that isn’t evidence either.

          • #47361 Reply


            Well for example government policy could be for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour to provide a pretext for America to enter WWII against Germany, but as you say there wasn’t an official vote in Congress asking them to attack.

            However the American oil embargo imposed on Japan with an ultimatum to leave Manchuria would raise the prospect of this happening, but the Pearl Harbour commanders weren’t informed of the worsening diplomatic situation.

            If they had been they could have prepared defensively, but this would have forestalled the Japanese attack which was a dependent on surprise. Roosevelt declared a day of infamy, for which he was responsible, by omission.

            The evidence became the cover-up as the commanders weren’t court martialled to avoid the truth being told, but job done, as America marched into war.

          • #47374 Reply


            To me that looks less like government policy, and more like manipulation of government by the Administration and possibly the State Department. The same would apply to 9/11. Another parallel, not quite so close, would be 2003, Blair’s administration and the devastation of Iraq.

          • #47392 Reply


            The Administration and State Department et al is the government, I think you are splitting the hairs as usual. Parliament voted for the Iraq war.

          • #47398 Reply


            Yes, the UK government voted for the Iraq war on the basis of Blair’s deception; that’s how the war became government policy. Likewise, the US government and NATO agreed to invade Afghanistan on the basis of 9/11.

            I’m not splitting hairs; this is the method by which any false-flag or similar works. The deception is devised to determine policy.

          • #47405 Reply


            They voted for war irrespective of Blair’s deception, everyone knew he was lying.

          • #47412 Reply


            Yeah, most were very keen for war. About 30 Labour rebelled, I think, Old Labour mostly. The Conservatives were in opposition, but they voted to support Blair.

            But false flag is a pattern, so it must serve some purpose.

  • #47352 Reply


    I seem to remember looking at the Lawyers’ Committee website, probably when it was mentioned on the 9/11 Post, so probably about a couple of years ago. I seem to remember that it was far more broad, raising dozens of issues, rather than banging on exclusively about demolition – though I may be confusing it with “9/11 Consensus”.

    • #47407 Reply


      If it helps, controlled demolition doesn’t mean all Jews or even you are to blame.

      • #47410 Reply


        Well, you could retract the accusations of me having sold my soul, or claiming that black is white, or of skunking the thread then. You could even apologise 🙂

  • #47418 Reply


    Extract from the press release accompanying the draft UAF report:

    “The research team plans to make public by the end of September all of the data used and generated during the study, a decision that contrasts with NIST’s withholding of key modeling data on the grounds that releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”

    This is a game changer. The UAF report has side-stepped all the dirty tactics of the Deniers – sarcasm and smears, misinformation and lies, shills and useful idiots – and rendered them irrelevant overnight. At a stroke a battleground has been established where only reasoning and science can prevail. You can’t undermine a 3D modelling programme by calling it a conspiracy theorist. “Hey, mathematical formula, where’s your tin foil hat?” doesn’t work either.

    Kempe recognised this and scuttled off. Others are slower on the uptake.

    • #47425 Reply


      Love, love is a verb
      Love is a doing word
      Fearless on my breath
      Gentle impulsion
      Shakes me, makes me lighter
      Fearless on my breath
      Teardrop on the fire
      Fearless on my breath

      Night, night of matter
      Black flowers blossom
      Fearless on my breath
      Black flowers blossom
      Fearless on my breath
      Teardrop on the fire
      Fearless on my

      Water is my eye
      Most faithful mirror
      Fearless on my breath
      Teardrop on the fire
      Of a confession
      Fearless on my breath
      Most faithful mirror
      Fearless on my breath
      Teardrop on the fire
      Fearless on my breath

      It’s tumbling down (as in love falling apart)
      It’s tumbling down (as in love falling apart)

      Yeah, it’ll be just great after the New York fire-fighters are exposed for the murderous scum they are, and Truthers everywhere are recognised as the heroes.

      • #47428 Reply


        Finally lost it!

        • #47430 Reply


          Yes Dave; I despair at the id-ego driven nature of human behaviour, each individual’s faults invisible to themselves. Look at what Node wrote above; there are those such as yourselves who accept “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers and thus are above criticism, and then there’s everyone else – quote, “Deniers – sarcasm and smears, misinformation and lies, shills and useful idiots”.

          Black flowers blossom. My only hope is that the teardrops eventually quench the fires.

          • #47432 Reply


            It would confirm a prejudice, but you’ve nailed the professional victim routine!

          • #47435 Reply


            “you’ve nailed the professional victim routine!”

            Indeed. You didn’t just post a smear, and I’m only imagining that I was the target.

          • #47480 Reply


            Now that the context is clearer, it seems that Dave has invoked the anti-Semitic trope of “Jews are professional victims”, a prejudice shared by Holocaust deniers, and as I mentioned earlier, Dave has recommended a book by Holocaust denier Victor Thorn.

            Here is an earlier example of me being “suspected” of being Jewish.

            It was decades before I recognised the anti-Semitism pervading the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement”, but my personal experience eventually made it undeniable.

      • #47445 Reply


        Congratulations Clark, you win. You’ve made it impossible to discuss the topic of this thread. You respond to EVERY post with attention-seeking irrelevant drivel. You’ve driven off everyone but Dave. I’ll leave you two to it.

        • #47449 Reply


          As explained Clark is compelled to dispute controlled demolition and skunk the thread as otherwise he feels personally culpable for the crime as a real or honouree member of the tribe. I find it an entertaining study in itself grappling with this ancestral madness which confirms a prejudice.

          I can understand why some find his posts at best tiresome sophistry that ruin a thread about 9/11, but you only need to view the collapse without blinkers to know it could only happen with the aid of explosives. So its a settled matter that many people avert their eyes from because they fear what they see.

          In truth there is no need to debate Clark, just make comments and attach links to 9/11 sites (Craig’s other closed 9/11 thread is a wealth of information) and authors and let people do their own research. That said Clark is a clever clogs and does raise fair points on other subjects.

          • #47454 Reply


            “tribe”, “ancestral madness”

            You’re talking about Jews, aren’t you Dave? “Only a Jew would deny demolition” right?

        • #47450 Reply


          “Lie STILL while the faithful kick you, scum. Answering back will NOT be tolerated from untermensch!”

          Is it any wonder that Israel feels the need for nuclear weapons?

          • #47451 Reply


            The boil has burst!

      • #47490 Reply


        ” Kempe recognised this and scuttled off. ”

        Don’t flatter yourself.

        This thread is going over the same old ground, it’s got boring.

        I’m the UAF report looks impressive, I’ve seen lots of reports that LOOK impressive but any modelling is only as good as the basic assumptions that form it’s foundation and the UAF’s work was based on a foregone conclusion. This is also a man who once described steel as a “very fire resistant material”! Presumably the numerous building codes around the world that require extensive fire-proofing on steel framed buildings are in error.

        Odd that.

        • #47493 Reply


          <i>This thread is going over the same old ground, it’s got boring.</i>

          No, the UAF report has broken new ground. It demonstrates with mathematics and engineering that WTC7 couldn’t have collapsed due to fire as claimed by NIST. As a defender of NIST, the ball is in your court now, Kempe. Prove him wrong. That’s what’s new.

          Until now, the Truth Movement has attacked the official narrative with a thousand anomalies and the establishment has responded by attacking the credibility of it’s accusers. Until now, that’s proved enough – global power structures against assorted individuals and small groups. But now the Truthers have sent Mathematicians and Engineers into the battle and science itself defines the rules of engagement. The establishment will have to come up with something better than shouting names at the enemy. You can only fight science with science, so come ahead if you think you’re hard enough.

          Now let’s examine your contribution. You’ve read enough of the UAF report to believe it’s impressive. So do you question the science? No, you attack the credibility of its author. ReallY? Looks like I over estimated you when I said you’d seen the writing on the wall.

          And anyway, it was a pretty lame attach on Hulsey. Steel IS a very fire resistant material. He didn’t say it was impervious.

          Let me ask you a question. If it is proved that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition, will you continue to claim that planes brought down WTC1 & WTC2?

        • #47495 Reply


          Kempe, my “emergency demolition of WTC7” suggestion isn’t “the same old ground”, is it? I did ask earlier.

          Node: “If it is proved that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition, will you continue to claim that planes structural failure at the damaged zones brought down WTC1 & WTC2?”

          I would; absolutely.

          Before ruling out gravity-driven collapse, you should work out what gravity-driven collapse would look like. That’s what Truthers never bother to do, simply declaring it impossible, and what I did bother to do.

          • #47497 Reply


            And Kempe, Node is right that science isn’t a matter of authority – though Node transgressed that himself further up the thread, with his “five fire commissioners” stuff.

            A valid objection to the UAF report is that they have very limited knowledge of the initial conditions.

          • #47498 Reply


            Oh and Node, it’s probably pointless coming from me, but someone ought to tell you. Your first three paragraphs really are the most self-indulgent twaddle. The “Truth Movement” has buried valid objections under its own small mountain of bullshit, which the “establishment” has mostly ignored or, if anything, used as click-bait like Google / YouTube has.

            Ordinary people have been taking the piss because what passes for reasoning in the “Truth Movement” is such shite, but you lot have decided that anyone disagreeing with any of you must be either stupid or evil, either sheeple or agents. So you’ve attributed the supposed agents’ contributions to the “establishment”.

            Consider. A man crossing a road is seen to be struck by a car in a hit-and-run incident. He is knocked against a wall, cracks his ribs and dies of internal bleeding. But no! This is just the “official story”! In fact, he had been in hospital shortly before, where evil doctors (who many say were Jewish) had rigged his ribs with explosives, and an accomplice to the driver of the car had detonated them by remote control to make it look like a simple hit-and-run crime! It’s not even possible for the car impact to have hurt him, because of Newton’s third law! Yeah, if I were a doctor I’d be terrified of being found out; wouldn’t you?

  • #47478 Reply


    I have read about half way through the UAF draft so far. Is anyone else here reading it?

  • #47502 Reply


    Right, I’ve got to the interesting bit,


    4.1 Key Features of the Collapse:

    – This section omits the initial half second of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity, as measured by Chandler.

    4.1.1 Discussion of NIST’s Progressive Collapse Simulation:

    “Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed”

    False. Window breakage seems to appear on some videos; Truthers, predictably, claim this to be “squibs”.

  • #47505 Reply


    Report page 108, PDF page 120 shows UAF simulation against Chandler’s video measurements. The graph is a bit crowded, but from t=~0.3 to t=~0.8 you can see uniform velocity of about 1 metre per second. No acceleration, uniform velocity. Can anyone please suggest ways that this might be consistent with collapse initiation by explosives?
    – – – – – – –

    In all, I am unimpressed with this report. 90% of it consists of claims of what couldn’t have happened. There are an infinite number of ways anything can break, yet only a handful of failure scenarios were modelled. It confuses free-fall with g, and shouldn’t be claiming any free-fall for the shell of the building because the report itself requires that the shell remain connected to the core.

    I think that the report’s emphasis upon simulation is premature. It would have been more useful to concentrate upon data gathering and measurement, establishing limits of accuracy of initial conditions, and then crowd-source multiple simulation scenarios in the manner of Seti At Home or Folding At Home.

    On the plus side it does show what a pig’s ear of a building WTC7 was. It confirms that column loads were wildly uneven, with column 79 carrying way more than most others, nearly four times the load of column 65. Further, this report establishes that global collapse of the building would have ensued from the failure of just six core columns.
    – – – – – – – –

    To the Truthers, I ask this; for what reason would the conspiracy have pre-rigged this building for nearly symmetrical bottom-up collapse?

  • #47525 Reply


    I often notice that the strong polarisation of some disputes is fully explained by Bayes Theorem (link to nice explanation below). Clark assigns zero to the prior probability that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (CD), and hence his Bayesian estimate of the probability of CD (trivially) works out at zero, no matter how much posterior evidence for it he includes.

    Assigning zero as a prior probability of CD is the same as saying ‘the US government of that time would never do such a thing as injure its own people in order to foment a casus belli’. That is akin to a religious declaration of faith, rather than any kind of science. A probability close to 1 would be wrong, but at least more consistent with experience. That is why SM says it is ‘tough on the cognition’ if you think it’s zero. It’s not ‘talking down’ – it’s maths.

    It’s also why Clark asserts that WTC7 was mined for CD in a few hours on the day, because if it took longer than that, then the perpetrators could not have been those accused. And if they were innocent of the WTC7 collapse, by what ingenious coincidence could they remain guilty for the twin towers? Clark has selected a new impossible thing to replace the impossible thing he can no longer believe.

    Understand Bayes Theorem (prior/likelihood/posterior/evidence)

    • #47526 Reply


      Vronsky, thanks for your cod-psychological hatchet job; I think I’ve addressed all those points elsewhere on this thread, so I suggest you read my other comments more carefully.

      Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives? Physics is my ‘thing’, you see.

      • #47530 Reply


        Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?

        Because …
        … the maximum distance any part of WTC7 could have fallen in the initial 0.5s is 1.22m
        … and the video was shot from hundreds of metres away
        … therefore the movement could not be accurately subdivided into enough data points to meaningfully graph.

        • #47538 Reply


          You’re dismissing it as measurement error, right?

          1) Measurement error should be random, but this shows a clear trend.

          2) The graph has two distinct regions, one of uniform velocity, followed by one of acceleration. This supposed measurement error doesn’t seem present on the graph once acceleration sets in.

          3) From memory, I think you can see this motion on other camera angles; the visible shell of the building twists slightly in the horizontal plane, counter-clockwise if seen from above, immediately before the onset of the precipitous collapse.

          3a) If Chandler indeed measured a descent, and it is indeed the vertical component of a visible horizontal twist, the motion should be more easily measured horizontally than vertically.

          So, would you support my second criticism of the UAF report, namely:

          “I think that the report’s emphasis upon simulation is premature. It would have been more useful to concentrate upon data gathering and measurement, establishing limits of accuracy of initial conditions, and then crowd-source multiple simulation scenarios in the manner of Seti At Home or Folding At Home.”

          …or would you rather dismiss this, er, anomaly so that you can add your voice to the demolition chorus?

          • #47544 Reply


            You’re dismissing it as measurement error, right?

            No. I’m dismissing your interpretation of Chandler’s data as nonsense. You isolated a tiny portion of time at the beginning of the fall, before meaningful measurement was possible, and saw what you wanted to see.

          • #47548 Reply


            Did you even bother looking for the horizontal twist?

            Well the data points are plotted that way on Chandler’s graph, and he even plotted a line through them. And that’s how it appears in the UAF draft report. Here’s the citation again:

            Report page 108, PDF page 120,


          • #47549 Reply


            Oh and it’s not “at the beginning of the fall”; it’s several seconds after the penthouse fell through the roof.

            Sorry, who is being selective with the data here?

          • #47556 Reply


            “Oh and it’s not “at the beginning of the fall”; it’s several seconds after the penthouse fell through the roof.
            Sorry, who is being selective with the data here?”

            I answered your question :

            Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how WTC7’s initial 0.5 seconds of descent at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?

            I’ve got nothing further to say on this point. Others can judge who’s been selective.

          • #47557 Reply


            I apologise for wording this incorrectly, and any confusion that may have caused. I should have written:

            “Could you please explain to me, as I asked above, how the initial 0.5 seconds of descent of WTC7’s roofline at uniform velocity could possibly be consistent with collapse initiated by explosives?”

            Chandler’s data and graph do not begin until well into the collapse, the first clear sign of which was the collapse of the penthouse.

        • #47554 Reply


          Here, posted by A&E9/11″Truth”:

          You can see the top left corner move towards the camera location immediately before accelerating descent. You can also see windows going dark, in contradiction of the UAF report’s claim – “Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed”

    • #47539 Reply


      Vronsky, I think you should factor into your psychological profiling of me that I have no qualms about members of US government plotting to kill US citizens to make a case for war. Members of US government are more than happy to kill US American citizens through police violence, poverty, monetary bars to healthcare, sending them to fight in the Middle East, pollution, and a host of other methods, so I don’t see why warmongering should be any different.

      Quite apart from consideration of the physics (which itself is unambiguous), I severely doubt pre-rigged explosives because it would have been far too fucking easy to get caught.

      • #47540 Reply



        “We’ve examined the design of the Twin Towers, and if structural failure across one storey can be induced anywhere below floor 105, complete destruction of the buildings is guaranteed. However, collapse could take around twenty seconds which is too slow for our theatrical objectives, so to ensure a collapse time of fifteen seconds or less, we propose a three month preparation program of covertly wiring demolitions on every floor. We have PR companies on standby should this be detected by any of the tens of thousands occupying the Towers every day, and death clauses will be included in every demolition worker’s contract.”


  • #47545 Reply


    …. and thus providing Vronsky with another perfect example of Bayes Theorem in action.

    • #47551 Reply


      Node, earlier you justly criticised Kempe for attempting to discredit the researcher rather than addressing the research, but now here you are reinforcing Vronsky’s character assassination of me. Well I’ll be damned.

      You and Vronsky are both wrong, demonstrably so because the cause of WTC7’s collapse doesn’t particularly matter to my interpretation of the events at the WTC complex – I regard both emergency post-rigged demolition of WTC7, and let’s call it < href=”″>decoy pre-rigged demolition of WTC7, as more likely than pre-rigged demolition of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

  • #47546 Reply


    ^ this was intended to follow on from my comment at October 2, 2019 at 10:58.

  • #47555 Reply


    Here’s some video of WTC7 burning:

    You can see that the fires were severe. There is smoke issuing all the way up; you can see it issuing directly from a window about the fortieth floor, contradicting the UAF draft’s claim that there were no fires above floor 30. At 10:30 you can see that WTC7 is bent, leaning to the left from the damaged area upwards – put a straight-edge against your screen to check.

    • #47579 Reply


      “At 10:30 you can see that WTC7 is bent, leaning to the left from the damaged area upwards – put a straight-edge against your screen to check”

      Have any of the FEMA, ARUP, NIST or UAF included included this lean in their assessments? UAF claim to have included damage to the building, but they were yet to publish their data when I checked their site two days ago. To account for it properly they’d have to perform another simulation, a preliminary one to generate estimates of the state of the building after WTC1’s collapse inflicted this damage.

      This lean also has implications for any pre-rigged “controlled” demolition hypothesis. Truthers constantly repeat that it takes months of calculation, planning and preparation to get a demolition just right, but a lean like this would render all that inaccurate. I count 19 storeys in the leaning section.

  • #47565 Reply

    mark golding

    Good video thanks Clark – Has anyone tried to map the 7WTC fire locations to the occupants on those floors?

    • #47570 Reply


      Hello Mark, good to see you. I hope you are well.

      There is very little about fire mapping in the UAF draft, however it does refer to the mapping done by NIST.

      But I would guess that there is much less detail for WTC7 than for the Towers, because WTC7 was evacuated (apart from Jennings and Hess) whereas many reports were received from people in the Towers, including police and fire-fighters.

    • #47595 Reply


      “Has anyone tried to map the 7WTC fire locations to the occupants on those floors?”

      According to the NIST report, the worst fires were on floors 7-13.
      According to the published list of tenants, US secret services occupied floors 9 & 10.

  • #47567 Reply


    Look at what is still on the A&E9/11″Truth” site; Chandler’s
    Downward Acceleration of the North Tower:

    This argument predicts that no structure that has successfully stood can undergo accelerating collapse. This is a site of architects and engineers; for them to continue to promote this they must be either incompetent or dishonest.

    Here, Chandler sets out his reasoning regarding WTC7:

    He repeatedly uses “free-fall” and “g” interchangeably, but they are not remotely interchangeable. Free-fall is a physical condition ie. something that happens to a real object in the real world, whereas g is a rate of acceleration ie. an intellectual abstraction, with no physical existence. To equate one with the other is like saying “it’s a mile to the shop, and it’s a mile to the dump, therefore the shop is the dump”. Just because something accelerates at g does not mean that it is necessarily in free-fall. I could crush a banana against the floor at g, but it wouldn’t be in free-fall. Yet Chandler writes this (in Part 2):

    “In the case of WTC 7 the fact of an extended period of free fall has been established by direct observation and measurement. See Part 1 of this series. We can conclude that all of the potential energy was being converted into kinetic energy with nothing left over to do anything else”

    No. Direct observation and measurement establish only acceleration of the roof-line at (pretty close to) g. To establish free-fall we’d have to observe the whole moving object, to establish that nothing else (such as the core) was exerting force upon it. But we can’t see the internals of the building, so we can’t assume free-fall. On the contrary, we should assume that the internal components are exerting forces upon the outer visible structure, and since we saw the penthouse collapse before the outer structure, we have excellent grounds to suspect that those forces are acting downwards.

Reply To: Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC
Your information: