WTC7 – controlled demolition or not?

August 1, 2011 50 Comments
By

Definitions

NIST is the governmental body which brought out the report on 911 and in particular, the structural side to WTC7.

WTC7 is the term used throughout the article and its discussion for the building discussed. Wiki says:

7 World Trade Center is a building in New York City located across from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. It is the second building to bear that name and address in that location. The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed in a terrorist attack. The current 7 World Trade Center opened in 2006 on part of the site of the old 7 World Trade Center. Both buildings were developed by Larry Silverstein, who holds a ground lease for the site from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

This article refers to the old building, not the post-2002 building in its place, as WTC7.

There are three main parties quoted in this article:

# NIST
# those who don’t believe the entirety of the NIST report on 911 – let’s call them sceptics, who have called for a reopening of the investigation of the events of that day
# the debunkers who don’t accept what the sceptics say and who largely support NIST but with their own embellishments on occasions.
The article below will concentrate entirely on WTC7 and will avoid all unnecessary reference to other aspects, such as the twin towers, aeroplanes or the Pentagon, unless in the context of “debris from the north tower” or similar.

The article will avoid drawing any conclusions about conspiracies, yea or nay but will leave that to the reader.

It will make reference to certain debunkers, not for the purpose of vilifying them but only to point out that the tone they’ve adopted and the paucity of what has been presented is an argument itself within the context of what the article is trying to establish.

It will attempt to maintain a neutral tone, avoiding colourful adjectives and references to the bona fides of either NIST or the debunkers, except in one section, necessary for the argument.

So let’s make a start

The events of 911, one would have thought, might have been put to bed but as with JFK and Dr. David Kelly, they haven’t and the reason is anomalies which have not been adequately explained away, along with an attitude on the part of the authorities which parallels that of the JFK investigation and the subsequent Warren Report.

You’ll recall there was a second investigation and report of the House years later and it’s to be hoped there’ll be an independent investigation of the events of 911 as well. This article argues that there is sufficient evidence to at least warrant such an investigation.

Tone

Contrast these two comments on 911. First, from a sceptic:

I would have thought that NIST would have taken up the report from US Geological Survey who,besides finding spherical iron particles, they reported something had melted molybdenum,which has a very high melting point. Even though US Geological is a Federal agency, NIST chose not to include it in their final report.

… and this from a debunker:

For all the conspiracy types, I’d like to know how they rigged the building for demolition, when they knew an airliner full of jet fuel was going to impact it somewhere. How do you do the wiring to take that into account and still bring the building down. Conspiracy nuts don’t understand basic engineering principles, which doesn’t stop them from flapping their gums.

Contrast the debunkers’ comments in this post on WTC7, which refer to such things as “you deranged Nazi muppet” and similar to the sceptic comments such as:

I offer this aerial photo of the aftermath -:

You will note buildings 4, 5 and 6 suffered major damage being in the footprint of the towers and did not collapse. You will note the P.O. and Verizon buildings were exposed to the same risk of damage, rubble, vortexes and fire and yet suffer barely a scratch.

The debunking side was significant for its mockery:

You forgot the Frankfurt School

… with no accompanying counter-arguments and for one blogger celebrity who waltzed in and followed this methodology:

1. Set up a strawman that is easily mocked;
2. Follow the strawman you’ve set up with ad hominem abuse;
3. Throw in a link which is one debunking link which has been debunked itself [LOL] and not in small measure.

As one reader of my last post on the matter emailed me:

The website that DK linked to appears to rely heavily on the NIST report and other official reports. This link below makes a few observations about them.

http://www.brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/03_Book_Reviews/2008/080123_Debunking_911_Debunking.htm

The book that’s referred to by David Ray Griffin has several useful reviews that may be worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=thecofcoa

In a debate put on by a debating society, to attempt to present that as your case would see you laughed out of the room and your reputation as a debater dashed for all time.

What is most puzzling about that celebrity blogger is that he once had a reputation as a clearthinking and fearless fisker of all things nefarious and I’d agree he was pretty darned good, hence his celebrity status, potty-mouth notwithstanding.

A measure of the man was that he could be personally kind to me and to many other lesser mortals in the sphere and that impressed me at the time. At the inception of this blog, he emailed us and wished us the best of luck, so you’ll see why my feelings are quite mixed.

One of his apologists emailed me with “he’s taken a back seat of late” and a number of people also emailed and asked me not to dwell too much on his 911 argument, such as it was.

So I won’t. Let’s move on.

Why such vehemence?

Just as with JFK, where observers fell quickly into two camps and then presented only facts from their own side which, by avoiding any but the most sceptical reading and only for the purpose of fisking, could hardly be relied on as final proof – so in this case, it is very difficult indeed to get to the unadulterated facts.

Even good material is shrouded in so much guff, on both sides that the bulk of my time in preparing this article was spent excising the colourful adjectives, the giving over of sections primarily directed against the other side and the windbagging of youtube presenters, along with dramatic music somehow meant to convince, in lieu of data.

And vehement it has become, as can be witnessed in the comments thread of that post on WTC7. Why? Well, I can only think that certain people have much riding on this being seen in one way – they have much to lose if it is seen by the public in a different way.

Why the puzzling behaviour, sometimes out of character?

I’m referring here to bloggers who are natural sceptics, i.e. the majority on my blogrolls and many who visit and even post at this site, who are perfectly happy to accept that there is an attempt by the government to suppress the liberty of the individual.

These people can be called radical, in the sense that radical means getting back to the roots, to the origins, to the essential basis or even truth of a matter. For such people, quite experienced in viewing government reports with jaundiced eyes, they’ll believe those reports only once they’ve done a thorough investigation of their own and have looked at the other side, in detail.

This is the mindset which produces the fisker who goes through such reports clause by clause, section by section, annotated along the way. This is the mindset which does not automatically accept the NPCC report but starts posting on the “alternative science” and who wouldn’t trust anything said by NPCC “scientists” until it has been vetted and conceded by scientists on the sceptical side.

These bloggers are natural-born sceptics and fiskers of hokum.

And yet here they are, on this one issue, suddenly and unquestioningly taking the side of the very government who produced those other reports they’ve been so scathing about and not only accepting NIST holus-bolus but actively seeking to dissuade scepticism and mocking it. playing it down whenever it arises, which is often.

Take the debunker link provided and straight off is this:

Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.

Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake.

To your humble article-poster, this is really quite puzzling and not only that, it is based on so many false premises. For example – “ground to a halt”? Emotive language, attempting to establish a fait accompli with no evidence presented to back it up but betraying the intent of the whole series of pages which have been produced expensively and with no attempt to be concise.

Internet-based content”? Now if that doesn’t get the sceptical bloggers’ alarm bells and red flags going, what else can? That’s the way MSMers and politicians talk, assassinating the internet as a presenter of anything worthwhile, accusing people such as the celebrity blogger mentioned above of being lightweight, even inviting him on Andrew Neil’s show for the express purpose of destroying him.

And knowing that he had a number done on him, he turns around and supports the very people who did that.

The debunker’s site claims it:

addresses the misleading and deceitful conspiracy industries latest attempt at creating consumers for their products.

Do I need to even address that? And yet that is presented as evidence of debunking.

From another site:

I must admit I always thought that the state either locked up lunatics or gave them medication. It is with some trepidation that these conspiracy loonies, along with the Princess Diana conspirator theorists – “It was the Duke of Edinburgh & MI5 that done it.” – are still amongst us.

More evidence? That passes for scholarship? My colleagues are happy to support such people as that? Here’s another piece of evidence from the debunker:

Conspiracy Theorists are hard at work looking to find the slightest discrepancy in the NIST preliminary report.

The NIST report is covered below. One commenter wrote:

The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report?

Is that not reason alone to investigate the report[s] which ignored the critical evidence? The debunker thinks not and continues:

I’m arguing that the damage to building 7 is MUCH worse than conspiracy theorist would have you believe.

Well yes, sceptics agree:

On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.

Assuming we’re unbiased, what would that indicate to you about the temperature during the collapse? In the light of possibly unusual events, should this not at least be addressed, rather than those raising the question being vilified?

911 Research said:

Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events.

Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using “elastic dynamic analysis.” “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

These are the bloggers who once fought for the right to question and who rightly castigated people who tried to gag the debate or to marginalize and vilify them by innuendo. Yet here they are doing precisely that themselves to a little blogger who dares to raise the question that there might be anomalies in this WTC7 thing.

Coming back to WTC7, You can read all the accounts initially allowed to be published here. Remember, that is a debunker’s site, replete with text in bold, so that you get the debunking picture. What you actually get is a picture of two things:

1. The fire started small and no attempt was made to stop it, on the grounds that there was no available water. When they finally got to deciding whether to intervene, they decided against it. So a fire was observed on a few floors but the fire department were not allowed to treat it. Interesting behaviour, would you not say?

2. All day and especially all afternoon, everyone in the area was being told to steer clear, that the building was coming down, even at the points it wasn’t coming down, being a steel structure similar to others which were firegutted and yet still stood. Firemen might be excused for not knowing how steel buildings operate but fire chiefs should have known that – it’s part of their business to know those things.

Still, there is an innocent explanation and that is that the scene was in shock and it is better to be safe than sorry. On the other hand, it makes observation of what was actually going on inside known only to a handful of people, such data never to be released. Let’s leave that point at that – unresolved.

The debunker quotes:

“The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street.

It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people.

We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely” – Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

Another:

“A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea.

Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

Another:

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.

That cuts both ways – it shows that when they went in, obviously it wasn’t a danger to life and limb at that stage, otherwise they wouldn’t have gone in – that’s just common sense – but it seems to have got more as it went on, on the south side.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses.

So that much is pretty clear.

The debunking site’s take on WTC7 [specifically]

The debunker says the map is “showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong”. The simple fact is that, tall as WTC1 was and though it leaned over, WTC6 was in the way and the initial fire and buckling in WTC7 was between floors 10 and 13.

So what does that prove? It does not bear on the argument that it was a CD on WTC7 at 5:20 p.m.

He goes on:

Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking.

In fact, though he uses no science to support that, it happens to be part of the CT argument as well, which you’ll hear below in one of the vids. Of course it pancakes – it is designed to come down into its own footprint.

NIST

Much of what NIST did has been covered in detail over the years. Here is one commentary on that:

The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation: [i]

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened…

The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”

Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted.

If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

[i] Youtube
[ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.111. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

Foreign Policy Journal adds:


A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact.

However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model.

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results.

Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4]

So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based.

The best alternative to NIST’s WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory states that additional sources of energy other than fire and gravity were used to bring down WTC 7. The strongest theories contend that these alternate energy sources included explosives and incendiaries. It is common knowledge that shaped charges can cut through steel support columns.[5] If all remaining support columns of WTC 7 were rigged with shaped charges on both sides, on each story for eight stories and were set off in the correct precisely timed manner, they could remove all remaining resisting support for WTC 7 allowing it to free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

More on this later, under The Collapse Itself. NIST itself appeared to soften its stance, as of 7/5/07:

A new eyewitness inside WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11 heard explosions before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. He was summoned to the Office of Emergency Management Operating Center (OEMOC), also known as “Rudy’s Bunker,” on the 23rd floor of the building. The center had been especially prepared for the Mayor and other officials to gather in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency. Some have wondered why Giuliani did not go to the OEMOC but instead remained some distance from the World Trade Center. This witness, who testified at official hearings and whose identity will be revealed in the general-theater-release version of “Loose Change,” has information that sheds light on this and other questions about WTC-7.

In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7′s) structural failure” (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html). Blast events would be consistent with a controlled demolition.

This is not reported by debunkers. It continues:

Even James Glanz, a reporter for The New York Times, admitted in an early story (29 November 2001) that the collapse of WTC-7 is even more perplexing than is the destruction of the Twin Towers, because no reinforced, steel structure high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of structural engineering. “Indeed, no steel structure high-rise collapsed due to fire before 9/11 nor after 9/11 – nor, if our research is correct, on 9/11.”

This article largely avoids the use of material from Alex Jones, not because it is wrong but because its very source being Jones is sufficient for debunkers to claim it is invalid, which is a ridiculous stance to take. One item which really does need quoting from Jones is:

After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.

The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.”

Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.

The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.”

However, in subsequent clips released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.

“Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented,” comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

As that is contentious and not vital to establish CD, this article now will move on from that without further comment.

9/11 Truth: NIST Enginner Caught Lying!


9/11 Truth: NIST Enginner Caught Lying! by BadKitty

John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC building, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis of the collapse of all three buildings. This video was shot on October 18, 2006. John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson Fund. A UT 9/11 Truth student organization called A Project for the New American Citizen was there to ask questions and film his response. This footage may appear in Loose Change Final Cut.

There’s no calculation we did to demonstrate that …” Pardon?

So, in a situation where the matter is anything but resolved, out comes the government and, EU-like, attempts to show that new evidence has come to light which puts the whole question to bed, end of story, nothing more here, pick up your bat and go home please:

August 22, 2008 – GAITHERSBURG, Md. – Federal investigators said yesterday that they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, as the North Tower collapsed, falling debris damaged Building 7 and ignited several fires inside. Skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone could not have brought down such a large steel-and-concrete structure.

Tampering with evidence

The debunker quotes many sites, among which is this:

The Firefighter Quotes – Evidence that conspiracy theorists are lying and taking firefighter quotes out of context.

Let’s see what the firefighters really were claiming. They called into question the official report, which denies explosions [you heard one in the second post] and molten metal, let alone a controlled demolition:

Now if we look at NFPA 921 14.3 “Preservation of the Fire Scene and Physical Evidence” we find the following “the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation. Therefore, the evidentiary or interpretative value of various pieces of physical evidence observed at the scene may not be known until, at, or near the end of the fire scene examination, or until the end of the complete investigation. As a result, the entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved.”

It doesn’t get much clearer than this. This is Investigation-101! For, all those debunkers and detractors who say “it’s obvious” why the buildings came down, I beg to differ, and so does the NFPA – ”the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.”

We are professionals, we are not supposed to jump to conclusions, and we are not supposed to let political and public factors determine what we do and don’t investigate. We definitely are not supposed to destroy the very evidence that will provide the answers.

And, when every indicator in “the book” is screaming “high-order” explosive damage, we have a history of prior explosives use by terrorists in those exact buildings, we have over 100 first responders reporting hearing “secondary” explosions, the fact that evidence was destroyed and this wasn’t investigated thoroughly is nothing short of criminal!

Let’s pause for a moment and ask the debunkers what they make of that? Firefighters out of order? Don’t know their business?

The Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002 , said:

Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”

Steel and debris from the site was sent to Fresh Kills where it was examined and sifted. As the Department of Sanitation could no longer handle the steel with their equipment, and … engineers thought the steel would destabilize the landfill, DDC received verbal permission to ship the steel to New Jersey. By the end of June 2002, over 1.6 million tons of steel and other debris were removed from the site.

and:

“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel.

The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”

Mayor Giuliani had been asked to halt the removal but his office did not respond to these requests. Commissioner Kenneth R. Holden … was given an award in 2002 by the AIA New York Chapter after he had overseen the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.

Fire Engineering magazine, January, 2002 edition, questioned the legality of sawing off sections of steel from the site and shipping it to China, before any investigation was carried out on it. In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

This report claimed that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “remain unknown at this time.” Yet independent sources were able to look at small amounts of material and came to certain conclusions [see Chemical Aspects below].

Silverstein

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds“, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: “… we’re getting ready to pull the building six.”

Not pull all firefighters out, not pull the building over to one side but “pull the building”. To finish the job off [if you're a debunker] or to implode it [if you're a sceptic]. Let’s not decide yet.

The following video is intended only to show the interview in which Silverstein spoke and you can make your own mind up whether “pull” means to bring the building down, on the grounds that it was now so dangerous that it threatened other buildings in the area, let alone life and limb of those around, especially crews.

There are other things in the video which I do not rely on in this article – debunkers will still point to my inclusion of this video as tinfoil hattism nonetheless – but I repeat, I do not rely on the vid for anything other than the footage of Silverstein himself.

This site addresses the Silverstein statement, one the debunkers absolutely must debunk or else their case in in trouble:


Subsequently, Silverstein Properties issued a statement claiming that when Silverstein advised the fire commander that “the smartest thing to do is pull it,” what he meant was that it would be wise to pull a contingent of firefighters out of the building. [ii]

Silverstein Properties’ explanation is unavailing for at least two reasons. A natural reading of this phrase indicates that when he said pull “it,” Silverstein was talking about pulling Building 7 itself, not the firefighters who were supposedly still inside the building. Second, there were no firefighters inside building when Silverstein advised the fire department commander to “pull it.”

The absence of firefighters in Building 7 is verified by the fact that Silverstein has admitted that he made his “pull it” statements “at around 3:30 or 4:00PM,” [iii] while the official National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) report indicates that Building 7 had already been fully evacuated between 12:30PM and 2:00PM. [iv]

Thus, “at around 3:30 or 4:00PM,” when Silverstein and the fire department commander were supposedly discussing evacuation of the firefighters, everyone, including firefighters, had already been evacuated from Building 7.

The collapse itself

The debunker links to this:

The Free Fall Fallacy – Photographic evidence the towers did not fall at free fall speed.

Rememberbuilding 7 states:

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.[i]

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii]

The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.” [iii]

Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.” [iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].” [v]

However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying: [vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Notes:

[i] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201
[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

Eyewitness:

Barry Jennings was Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside Tower 7 when the second plane had struck tower 2. He very clearly states he heard multiple explosions well before the collapse of Tower 7, and he barely made it out due to these explosions.

And of course, Barry Jennings is now also dead, though I’ll not make anything of that in this article.

Here are three videos showing it from different angles.

The debunker mentions the cables:

We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

Eight story building?

Eyewitness on a “countdown”:

JD commented, after one post:

Instead of reading web pages by ‘truthers’ and ‘debunkers’ why not ask an expert? Why not ask a demolition contractor how he would go about pulling down a multi-storey office block in a confined space without damaging neighbouring buildings?

Your word, JD, is my command. Here is a demolition expert on the subject [H/T Revolution Harry]:

The Dutch demolition expert in that film, Danny Jowenko, was killed in a car accident in the Netherlands, on 16/07/2011, shortly before 19.16 hours.

He was reportedly driving from church when he collided head-on with a tree. There was also a dog in the car who survived. No attempt is made, in this article today, to draw any conclusions from that.

In 2007 reports began to circulate that Jowenko had retracted his stance on the footage of WTC7, however, he reaffirmed his previous opinion in a phone call with blogger Jeff Hill, noting “When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, ‘No, it was a controlled demolition’, you’re gone. You know?”

Even the debunker comes to the party here and offers numbered points refuting the CD hypothesis. His point 7 is:

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

That is significant in the light of comments on this vid by another demolition expert:

Another:

Another:

And more:

“In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts” says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also … Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that “WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives”.

Foreign Policy Journal acknowledges difficulties with CD:

There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example.

Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.[8] These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts.

Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.[9]

So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done.

Attempts to deny “expert testimony”

Lawbrain gives this admittedly negative view on it:

Generally speaking, the law of evidence in both civil and criminal cases confines the testimony of witnesses to statements of concrete facts within their own observation, knowledge, and recollection.

Testimony must normally state facts perceived by the witnesses’ use of their own senses, as distinguished from their opinions, inferences, impressions, and conclusions drawn from the facts.

Opinion testimony that is based on facts is usually considered incompetent and inadmissible, if the factfinders are as well qualified as the witness to draw conclusions from the facts.

Now that is fair. However, they go on to say:

In certain instances, however, the law allows witnesses to provide opinion evidence, and such evidence is divided into two classes, lay opinion and expert opinion. A lay witness may give his or her opinion when that opinion is (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness; (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of expert testimony discussed below.

Thus, lay witnesses who have had an opportunity to observe a particular vehicle in motion are normally permitted to testify that it was traveling at a great rate of speed or was going pretty fast. Lay witnesses are also normally allowed to give their opinion as to the height, weight, quantity, and dimensions of things, even if their testimony is not precise. By definition, a lay witness is any witness who is not qualified to testify as an expert on a particular subject.

Expert witnesses are persons who are qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, to form definite opinions with respect to a division of science, a branch of art, or a department of trade. The law deems persons having no such experience or training to be incapable of forming accurate opinions or drawing correct conclusions.

Thus, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149-152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court further observed that the reliability of a scientific technique may turn on whether the technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; and whether there is a high rate of error or standards controlling its operation.

Courts do not apply a rigid rule in determining whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert. Instead, an expert’s qualifications are normally evaluated on a witness-by-witness basis, according to the facts and issues of each case.

There are two general classes of matters as to which expert testimony is admissible: (1) matters as to which the conclusions to be drawn by the jury depend on the existence of facts that are not common knowledge and that are specifically within the knowledge of persons whose experience or study enables them to testify with authority on the subjects in question; and (2) matters as to which the conclusions to be drawn from the facts stated, as well as knowledge of the facts themselves, depend on professional or scientific knowledge not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence.

Now, the lay denial of the qualification of the men just quoted [as in comments on the last post] depended on three factors:

1. “Well, the other side has their experts too,” assuming of course, in a mathematical model, that all experts are equal but the denier’s is a bit more expert than the sceptic’s;

2. That the denier has the expertise him/herself to pronounce on the said experts’ qualifications to speak on the matter;

3. That the actual comments made by the experts are not refuted, one by one but that a general conclusion differing from that of the experts is made, once again based on no actual evidence but on supposition that, “as I don’t accept that it did implode, then ipso facto, the “experts” who say it did must be wrong”.

This was shown in one commenter’s remarks:

Some bloke giving his opinion on youtube is not evidence of anything.

… which of course ignores the point that he was an expert, in the context of being in the very area he argues. He wasn’t one of the sceptic writers or a debunker or a member of NIST or of anything else.

He was an expert.

When such an expert cannot be debunked and the denier cannot find sufficient “experts” to say the opposite [using the term “expert” in the sense Lawbrain used it], then we get this:

Actually, no, I’ve lost patience with this guff. And I’ve better things to do with my time that wade through even more daft youtube clips.

My case rests on this specific question.

The troll and the shill

One of the key tenets in trolldom or shilldom is to come in on the opposite side and give the good oil up to a point, albeit with some hysteria and demands that something be done – they’re using this on Christianity at the moment – but then to make some claims which either are so OTT and cannot be verified, one way or the other or else to have those claims fall at the first or second hurdles.

Most bloggers in our field are well aware of that trick. Some of the material for CD was unusable because of either shoddy scholarship or else suspicion of shilldom. Where such a situation occurred, I quoted directly from a debunker’s site because, though he is essentially wrong, at least there’s a sort of honesty in his wrongness.

Occam’s razor

Angry Exile first put the idea of applying Occam’s razor to this situation and I completely agree – let’s not make up any convoluted theories to try to explain away something quite simple, as the debunkers do but let’s KISS.

In fact, the Foreign Policy Journal asks for just that:

NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell. Their theory is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7[1].

Many people are under the mistaken impression that NIST’s theory of how WTC 7 fell down is a valid scientific theory. In science however, a valid theory must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the available empirical data.[2] This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observations.

Notes:

[1] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam%27s%20razor

[3] NIST admits freefall of WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

[4] http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

[5] Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to Explosion at WTC

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

[7] Y. Kasai. The International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. Demolition and reuse of concrete and masonry http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q3wOAAAAQAAJ

[8] 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[9] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,”
The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Volume 2, 2009, pp. 7-31. Available from here

Another simple take, for good measure:

http://youtu.be/mI3wZM47LxU

Explosions

NIST denied explosions [this section is not only about WTC7]:

FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, Engine Company 7, Page 18 Report From Ground Zero:

“I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top down, one after another, boom, boom, boom.”

The video 9/11, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold contains several excerpts of video reports in which witnesses describe what they saw and heard.

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:

I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable — a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. 5

The second excerpt records the impressions of an amateur videographer:

45 minutes into the taping that we were doing there was an explosion — it was way up where the fire was — and the whole building at that point bellyed out, in flames, and everybody ran.

The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:

I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions — three thuds — and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.

John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thus:

I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.”

And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’ 6

Other accounts are in the form of video records. One is of firefighters recalling detonations [MPEG video] in the South Tower, in a firehouse discussion:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin’
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin’ out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom …
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin’
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of … this cloud of s___
just chasin’ you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn’t outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn’t outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car,
I hid under the car, I was waitin’ to die.

In another video, a worker at Ground Zero describes what was found in the rubble in the way of objects other than the Towers’ steel.

You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don’t find a desk.
You don’t find a chair.
You don’t find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.

Notes:

1. The New York Times Company, et al. … v. City of New York Fire Department …,”>Legal Information Institute
2. In New 9/11 Tapes, Glimpses of Loss, Struggles and Valor, 8/16/06
3. Online petitions allow 9/11 skeptics to speak out” Daily Beacon, 2/6/02
4. On the Scene at the WTC, Electrical Wholesaling, 2/1/02
5. An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks…, The Planetary Society
6. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11, 2002, page 87
7. Broadway Electrical Supply’s Jeff Birnbaum recounts his experience…, 2/13/02

This is one of the key vids dealing with NIST’s claim that there were no explosions:

I would say that that vid and the one by Tom Sullivan need to be actually listened to, word by word.

Craig Bartmer, Former NYPD, and 9/11 First Responder: [i]

“All of a sudden, the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, ‘Get away, get away, get away from it!’ And, I was like a deer in the headlights. And I looked up, and…Two guys that I knew were on the transit radio. I don’t know if those tapes are out there…

And I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. You know the thing started peeling in on itself and, I mean there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at.

Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know?

So yeah, I wanna know what took that building down. I don’t think it was a fire and it certainly wasn’t a plane…It had some damage to it but nothing like what they’re saying…I am shocked at the[official] story we’ve heard about it, to be quite honest.”

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder: [ii]

“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

Notes:

[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ. Starts at 2:05 into the video; ends at the 3:40.
[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho

The chemical aspects

Rememberingbuilding7 said:

Ignoring the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did not test for evidence of explosives, because, according to NIST spokesperson Michael Newman:

“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time… and the tax payers’ money.” [i]

NIST also claimed that no steel was recovered from Building 7. While it is true that virtually all of the steel from Building 7 was destroyed illegally, this claim is blatantly contradicted by Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance Study, which called for further study of a piece of steel recovered from Building 7 that had experienced a “severe high temperature corrosion attack.” [ii]

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute Journal, Transformations, described this piece of steel, saying: [iii]

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”

The authors of Appendix C explained that, “the severe erosion found in several beams [in the debris field of Building 7] warranted further consideration.” [iv]

They hypothesized that a eutectic formed in the steel at approximately 1000° C due to a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile, however, independent researchers challenged this hypothesis, arguing that: [v]

“[T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur… The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”

The authors of Appendix C concluded by saying, “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Notes:

[i] Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008. http://www.ae911truth.org/press/23
[ii] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1-13. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[iii] JKM, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI – Transformations http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
[iv] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[v] Jones, Ferrer, Jenkins, Legge, Gourley, Ryan, Farnsworth, Grabbe, “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction.” Journal of 9/11 Studies. January 19, 2008. http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

CA Answers gives this:

[i] Chemists who discovered unreacted incendiary (explosive) material in dust of ground zero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBL… – Mark Basile -Chemical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2Jv… – Niels Harrit – Chemist
[ii] MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xn…
[iii] Molten Metal And Extremely High Temperatures: Molten metal found at base of where building 7 stood, discussed by ground crew and firemen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNknITygr…
[iv] Building Experts Explain the Controlled Demolition of Building 7: go to the 2 minute 25 second mark in the clip. Even the firemen state in advance “keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down” at the 2 minute 44 second mark of the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdhdTXHc…
[v] Google search: “Kevin Ryan’s Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites”
[vi] 911 – NIST : A New Standard of Deception – Kevin Ryan. (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBggYfnt…
[vii] A complete compilation of documented interviews, videos and articles:
http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/my-though…

So……..were they all lying? Or were they daring to state the obvious, that 9/11 was a ‘controlled demolition’ and must have required insider foreknowledge and assistance?

My purpose in giving all those was not to overwhelm you but to give sufficient to make an informed decision for yourself. For example, there are a few things in Blissful Wisdom I’d be concerned with, although the part relating to WTC7 is sound enough.

Jane Standley

The chronology for the BBC World segment presented by the studio anchor and reporter on the scene in NY, Jane Standley:

… has been much commented on:

1. Anchor opens with specific question about the Salomon, even saying it has “also” collapsed;

2. She’s standing on the wrong side of the camera for such a shot because she’s obscuring the Salomon;

3. She answers in general about the WTC and how it’s been completely sealed off etc. but never really addresses the Salomon directly, which is clearly the intent of BBCW in this segment. So Dearieme’s contention that she just didn’t know which building was which holds water;

4. The anchor comes back to this specific building having collapsed and still she doesn’t address that;

5. The ticker though repeats that it has collapsed;

6. They then suddenly lose the feed;

7. Five minutes later, the building collapses, off-air.

So she appears not to know one building from another but those who prepared the report do and it’s repeated and repeated. Jane Standley said in a later interview:

“It’s very unfortunate that this whole conspiracy – kind of – ridiculous situation has grown out of what’s really a very small and very honest mistake.”

Reporting an event before it happens is a “very small and very honest mistake”. R-i-g-h-t. Let’s move on.

What we have here

I’m reticent to bring in the South Tower in an article specifically on WTC7 but I mention it here as an example of the type of thing going on. Here’s an audio from within the South Tower:

… and here is debunker’s reaction below the vid:

Typical truther drivel. I wonder why he fails to mention that Chief Palmer and his crew had barely reached the lowest part of the impact zone when the tower collapsed.

Note that tone again. Actually, he’s also wrong:

The south tower was impacted from floors 78 through 82, Palmer was on the 79th at last contact. He reported two isolated pockets on 78

As there were only small pockets of fire below 79 how did the steel from O to 79 suffer sufficient heat damage to cause total collapse. Huge steel columns, beams and spandrels falling by gravity cant move horizontally to imbed themselves in adjacent buildings.

Brian Clark (84th floor #2:

“The second plane hit six floors below us. We made our way down to where the plane hit and there was no fire to speak of, just a few flames licking up the wall. As we proceeded down the stairs, a couple floors below impact, conditions were normal. The lights were on and fresh air was coming up from below.”

And from another debunker:

I can’t rate this video low enough you morbid fucks. There is NOTHING in these recordings to cast doubt on the fact that there were fires. YOU create a massive strawman when you say fires must exist at all points to initiate a collapse.

Intelligent man, yes? Actually, that was not said at all. Multiple people plus the audio-tape indicate there was certainly fire, enough to make people jump out of the building. It indicates the fire was not intense enough to vapourize them at that point. There was fire, yes but limited to certain floors.

It was also not said by skeptics that fires must exist at all points – that was the line the government took, that there was a raging inferno which melted the supports. The skeptics say there were few fires below 78. The debunker has created the strawman, not the skeptics.

Conclusion

If we can set aside the hysteria, the ad hominem attacks, the auto-dismissal, the mockery, the marginalization of the author and all such goodies, all that this author is asking is that, on the grounds that both NIST and the government do not have the correct story, let alone the withholding of evidence and prevention of evidence either being examined or freely coming out, there is sufficient evidence to warrant a reinvestigation.

Such was the case with JFK, such was the case with David Kelly, the latter having the whole blogosphere up in arms.

Why not with this? Is there not a process in law whereby evidence is heard by an independent jury?

Why not in this? Why the need to deny an investigation? Is it for one side only to determine whether there need be an investigation or not?

For example, if you accused me of some crime and I said, “Nah, there’s no evidence, I’m sick of watching vids of me actually doing it, nothing here, move on,” is that acceptable in the United Kingdom or in the United States of America as a basis for a legal system?

Or if so many the other side continue to insist that there really is a case to answer, should not a proper inquiry be set up to pursue this, just as the House Committee had to eventually do with JFK?

Just as with the Hutton fiction?

If you say they are different situations, then who are you to make this judicial decision? You are one of the antagonists, just as I am. Surely that’s for a tribunal to decide?

No?

No doubt some debunker will set to it, not to answer these points, as they can’t be answered but to put a completely different case, relying on the explode NIST report and 911 debunked or similar, possibly even believing this is equal and opposite.

There’s hardly been an issue which is less equal and opposite.

This issue needs addressing, rather than denying.

50 Responses to WTC7 – controlled demolition or not?

  1. August 1, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    I was asked what does this have to do with liberty? The answer is – everything. For if there was controlled demolition, then there are ramifications of that, as people well know, hence the vitriol.

  2. August 1, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    James,

    “I was asked what does this have to do with liberty? The answer is – everything.”

    Yep, but let’s advance the question a bit – how does this help the cause of liberty right here, right now? Because even if people completely agree with what you say (and I have no doubt that this comments section will be filled with people who both do and don’t) how does you ploughing over events from the best part of a decade ago help us with the invasions and erosions of our liberty in the here and now? Over the past week we’ve had news that the DNA database is being retained in a very concerning way, and today we’ve had the news that the police want members of the public to shop those who have anarchist thoughts. Yeah, I know that the likes of Longrider have and will deal with these two issues, but your posts centre on a deeply contestable version of something that happened nearly ten years ago. Furthermore, the fact that it is so controversial means that people will look at what you’ve written and conclude that the friends of liberty are conspiracy theorists, and that leaves our arguments vulnerable to considerable attack and leaves us defending or attempting to contextualise arguments that really should be extremely tangential at best to the concerns we have about what is happening to liberty in the present. So again, how does this help the cause of liberty in the here and now?

    TNL

    • August 1, 2011 at 8:06 pm

      Hi TNL,

      You are right, of course, that many things happening right now could be argued to be more important to discuss to advance the cause of liberty.

      However, I would counter that there is no statute of limitations on the truth. If there is any truth in the allegation of conspiracy around 9/11 (and I personally believe there is more than enough evidence to warrant a proper, independent investigation), then here we would have one of the most heinous instances of the use of State power against its own people in living memory – not only in terms of what happened on the day itself, but also 9/11′s lasting legacy to this day (i.e. multiple invasions, tens of thousands of civilians dead, endless continual erosion of individual liberty, etc, etc).

      Should we let the ‘debunkers’ (of any topic) dictate if, where and how discussion of relevant topics should take place? I hope not!

      Awesome article James!

      • August 1, 2011 at 8:22 pm

        Cheers, Manu. The point is it needs an investigation. I wasn’t proving I was right or anything like that. I was just collating the work of others who say that “an investigation is warranted”. Just that.

      • August 1, 2011 at 8:56 pm

        Manu,

        No, we shouldn’t let debunkers (terrible term – sceptics is much better) control who and what can be debated and when – just as we shouldn’t let truthers (if there is a nicer term then please substitute in your own head the word truthers with that nicer term) dictate the terms of that debate either.

        And that’s free speech, basically. Here James is (and should) be allowed to call into question what he likes, just as I am (and should) be allowed to question the efficacy and even point of doing so.

        TNL

  3. August 1, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    How does you ploughing over events from the best part of a decade ago help us with the invasions and erosions of our liberty in the here and now?

    People are being fed pap, as you’d agree in other areas and the DNA database – which I’m also posting on soon, I’ll call in and see what you said about it – is a worrying example of how official organs are being abused. People know about this from headlines but it doesn’t strike home to them unless they suffer it.

    Something like setting the CD to rights does raise questions in the ordinary person’s mind, especially if there’s a one stop place to read it. It took me 12 hours to collate it – it will take others ten minutes to read it. Just to start to have doubts becomes cumulative but it needs an issue which will touch Americans closely.

    And as it’s incontestable on WTC7 – I’m not speaking about the died in the wool NIST believers but reasonable people with open minds and as there are more of those every year, as people grow up – then the thing only needs to be an acorn of truth and the rest follows. Has before, can again.

    I agree this doesn’t touch us as much in the Uk because most people are “hip pocket” and local in their concerns. That’s conceded. We do have readers from across the pond though and if some of that data hadn’t been seen in that context before, then Americans own disgruntledness [?] with their own authorities might just spill over.

    We don’t know. It might do nothing. It might do something. For example, the Justice for Meredith Kercher people visit here – they have blogs, things are quoted from the article, people coming over for other author’s articles might also look at this one and so on. You know how it works.

    The main thing was to get it on the record and able to be read, without having to run all over the net.

    To answer you more specifically – I do think that 911 is still pretty huge in American minds and a certain Brazilian electrician and David Kelly are fresh in our minds – it makes us less ready to trust the authorities and as they appear to be doing a number on us – you mentioned the DNA databse, then it all helps the process.

    The post is not for the prejudiced bloggers whom you could put an elephant in front of, calling it an elephant and he’ll still call it a cat – it’s for those quiet readers out there, for the “lurkers” who don’t launch into abuse but think to themselves and then have this to come back to as a starter page.

    These are the people it’s for [or for any bloggers who do actually read it with an open mind and think – hmmm, might be something in that after all.

    Lastly, if it is so, then there is a thing called justice.

    • luikkerland
      August 1, 2011 at 8:17 pm

      James Higham, thanks for going to the trouble of assembling this info. I will have a closer inspection – as it deserves – when time properly allows.

      • August 1, 2011 at 8:19 pm

        It’s just a record, Luikkerland – it’s not going any place, so take your time. It’s summer after all. :)

    • August 1, 2011 at 9:13 pm

      James,

      While there are certainly some bloggers (and, more importantly, people in wider society) who just won’t see facts when they are placed in front of them, I think aspects of the wider debate that accompanied your original post were rather more subtle than that. Longrider, for example, was looking for something beyond opinion in order to buy into what you were saying. Of course, it is more than possible that you both have different standards of what constitutes fact and what constitutes opinion, but the extent to which anyone can believe what either side has to say is, to a large extent, predicated on such standards.

      I also think that the abuse you mention in the article was, barring the inept and unwarranted Nazi jibe, quite restrained. We both know that DK has used far fruiter language and imagery over the years. Likewise, LR’s comment about the Frankfurt School came across as light-hearted and tongue in cheek. Not that you shouldn’t comment on things that you believe to be unfair, but rather that I question (given how relatively minor at least two of the comments were) what they add to your argument.

      Anyhoo, enough from me.

      TNL

      • August 1, 2011 at 9:37 pm

        Longrider, for example, was looking for something beyond opinion in order to buy into what you were saying.

        Look at the four technical vids in the post, the ones by Tom Sullivan, Niels Harrit, Mark Basile and David Chandler. They are anything but opinion – they are experimental results on part of the debris and the considered opinion of an explosives loader.

        When I go to the doctor and he says what’s wrong with me, that’s an opinion. I can get a second one. Even a scientific conclusion is an opinion.

        As for DK being far worse elsewhere, I can be too :) which is why I was nice to him in this post. LR and I, as far as I know, have no issues.

        Thanks for the comments.

      • August 1, 2011 at 11:08 pm

        Likewise, LR’s comment about the Frankfurt School came across as light-hearted and tongue in cheek.

        Precisely.

  4. Revolution Harry
    August 1, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Fantastic article James. Well written and presented. I only hope that people take the time and trouble to read it

    If you could ever be persuaded I’d look forward to your forensic examination of the numerous other anomalies surrounding 9/11. Believe me there are very many of them. Your conclusion, that an independent investigation is warranted, is sober and measured. That said, any further investigation, in the manner in which you proceeded on WTC7, would inevitably lead to a far more worrying and troublesome conclusion (though I suspect that you personally have already reached it).

    TNL,

    If we were playing a word association game and I said the word conspiracy, what would your response be? I’d guarantee that yours, like most others, would be theory. That, I’d posit, is by design. There’s been a concerted attempt to belittle and denigrate any investigation into such things as the evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC7 as being mere ‘conspiracy theory’. Why would that be and who would benefit?

    I tumbled down the ‘conspiracy theory’ rabbit hole several years ago now. I can tell you that there is much in terms of misinformation and disinformation and attempting to discern fact from fiction is something of a challenge. It’s a challenge worth taking on though and if you do a clearer picture does emerge. I’ll refrain from elaborating on this but my point is, just because something has been labelled a ‘conspiracy theory’ shouldn’t prevent you from either investigating it further or subsequently writing about it, as James has done. I guarantee that if you do take the time and trouble to try and separate the truth from the lies and distortions you wouldn’t be asking the question, ‘how does this help the cause of liberty right here, right now’. It has far more than you may at first imagine.

    One final point. I can’t say how disappointed I was to read DK’s response to James’ previous article. I can remember the times when I was fully convinced of the arguments for global warming. Those were the days when I read the Guardian and thought Newsnight provided a balanced and impartial news source. One of the bloggers who convinced me otherwise, on the issue of global warming as well as the value of Guardian and the BBC, was DK. All I’d say to him is that should he put as much effort into investigating the subject of 9/11 as he did on global warming he’d reap similar awards. He’d also experience a very similar situation as to that of the global warming issue. That is highly questionable government sponsored or affiliated organisations attempting to obfuscate and mislead when the opportunity for complete clarity was available.

    • August 2, 2011 at 11:43 am

      If conspiracy theories have been denigrated then a lot of the responsibility needs to be laid at the doors of the theorists themselves. I’m not passing a judgement on what James has written here, but we know that there is a lot of alarmist, unrealistic nonsense out there.

      I also resent the assumption that I haven’t looked into these things. I have; I’ve just reached different conclusions to James and yourself. Furthermore, you also don’t seem to understand my point about the cause of liberty (unlike James) – our freedoms are being eroded in the here and now; let’s deal with that, not by churning over (admittedly controversial) historical events.

      And I’m not sure whether your point about DK was addressed to me or the wider audience. If it was the former, then all I can do is shrug and say go talk to DK about it.

      TNL

      • Revolution Harry
        August 2, 2011 at 10:55 pm

        TNL, thanks for the reply. My comment about DK was a general one and not aimed at you. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

        I’d be genuinely interested in what you consider to be ‘unrealistic and alarmist’.

        On the single issue of 9/11 we have two conspiracy theories. The first is the official one, that is that 19 hijackers, under the guidance of the known CIA asset Osama Bin Laden, conspired to hijack four planes and whilst outwitting the most sophisticated air defence system in the world (something that had never been done before or since) managed to bring down the two towers of the World Trade Centre buildings and penetrate the defences of the headquarters of the world’s foremost military power. Included in this conspiracy theory are highly questionable claims about how the towers, including WTC7, came to actually collapse.

        The second conspiracy theory suggests that there are a limited number of groups and/or individuals within the American establishment, aided and abetted by others outside of America, who for geopolitical and perhaps other reasons, conspired to create a false flag terrorist event. The second theory is mired in speculation and disinformation. That said, it is possible, as James has done, to show that the official story does not stand up to close scrutiny. Apart from issues surrounding WTC7 there are many other anomalies that also do that. Personally I’ve satisfied myself that the official story is not true and therefore I am left with the possibility that the second conspiracy theory has some merit.

        This was a far from easy step to take. There is the ever present peer pressure, mockery and ridicule which leaves a lot of people afraid of being called a kook and a conspiracy theorist. I’m glad I took that step because I’m now long past being afraid of such slurs. Just because such theories are denigrated doesn’t make them untrue. As I said you have to wade through an awful lot of dross but it’s worth it in the end.

        I know full well I won’t convince you and that’s fair enough. The reason why these issues are important to the cause of liberty in the UK is because if you don’t understand the true nature of how the world and the individual nations within it are controlled you’ll never be able to truly do anything about it. To best explain what I’m getting at I’ll quote some text from an article I’ve just written.

        ‘That is that there is a clear and identifiable agenda to create a one-world government and religious system sustained and supported by a global currency and financial system. This world government is an essential component of what its proponents often refer to as a New World Order. In it, the world is to be completely restructured and national boundaries and sovereignty are, at best, to become secondary if not obliterated all together. This new paradigm is often sugar coated as ‘planetary citizenship’ in the ‘global village’ but the reality will be anything but.

        This New World Order has both a temporal and a spiritual dimension to it. The temporal or political aspect is best described as a form of 21st century feudalism where a self styled ‘elite’ few intend to extend their current control over the individual nations of the world into a global system of enslavement over all of humanity. This ‘elite’ consider themselves to be ‘philosopher Kings’ who know what’s best for the rest us, who they consider to be human cattle in need of management and control. It’s strongly suspected that the main vehicle for this temporal control is to be a reformed United Nations operating through regional governments such as the European Union. Those who are the very ones responsible for the innumerable problems in the world are now in the process of offering the solutions. Solutions that ultimately serve Their needs and interests rather than that of the rest of humanity.’

        This is why our liberties are being eroded. We don’t have a true democracy here in Britain, I doubt we ever have. What we do have is perhaps best summed up in a quote from Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi:

        “Nowadays, democracy is nothing more than a facade for plutocracy. Because the nations no longer tolerate naked plutocracy, their masters allow them nominal power, while retaining factual power in the hands of the plutocrats.”

        It’s my contention that we have to understand the true nature of what is happening in Britain and elsewhere. Only then will we be in a position to ‘turn back the tide’.

        Thanks,

        Harry.

        • August 3, 2011 at 8:37 am

          Unrealistic and alarmist? Well, the theories of David Icke spring to mind – and even if you don’t buy into what he says you really should concede that (a) he is a famous conspiracy theorist and (b) he’s the sort of person who springs to mind when conspiracy theories are mentioned. You could also mention the climate change theory here – certainly both unrealistic and alarmist – although I would class that more as a scam than a theory.

          Fairly obviously, I buy into the first theory about 9/11. The fact that they were able to achieve what they did despite America’s air defence system is down to a number of factors, although these factors are largely based around the fact that the events (turning passenger planes into guided missiles) were largely unprecedented. America did respond to the events as they unfolded, but it was largely using previously held expectations about this type of incident (namely that these were conventional hi-jacks and would be resolved in a more conventional way than what actually unfolded). For example fighter jets were scrambled but by the time they were in the air, the attacks were largely over. Besides, the jets were buggering about near the Atlantic coast because that was what they had been trained to do – intercept attacks from the East. Should their standard operating procedures have been updated? Yup. Should the attackers not have been allowed on aircrafts carrying knives? Yup. And should the security services acted on those foreign nationals learning to fly planes but not land them? A big fat yes to that one. But this is all with the benefit of hindsight. Of course, you can make a compelling case for the incompetence of the US government both leading up to and during the events of 9/11, but that does not then make a credible case for a malign conspiracy.

          And please, I’m not being peer pressured into not accepting your conspiracy theories. Once again, I’ll point out that my reading of the events is very different to your own one. And that has nothing to do with the fact that these theories are mocked. It has everything to do with the fact that I don’t agree with them. But you’re right, of course, just because a theory is denigrated doesn’t make it untrue. But equally, it doesn’t make it true either.

          The New World Order stuff is pretty much classic conspiracy theory fare, and unfortunately doesn’t really stand up to close scrutiny IMHO. I don’t doubt that some would like to position themselves as “philosopher kings” (although in doing so miss the point of what the philosopher kings were meant to be) in a world government, but the actually ability of anyone to achieve this given the ineptitude that characterises so much of human activity I doubt that a world government is actually achievable. But I also know that once you start thinking in terms of a global conspiracy, everything starts to reinforce that thought. Doesn’t make it any truer, though. Besides, you don’t need to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories or on the New World Order nonsense to be able to recognise and resist attempts to curb our freedoms. In fact – and this is the point that myself and others have been making throughout all this – it might be better not to carp on about the New World Order when making the case against further government intrusion in our lives. You don’t need to make the American establishment responsible for 9/11 to point out the negative nature of the Patriot Act or the illegality of the Iraq War. Just as 7/7 in this country doesn’t have to have been a government operation in order to show the problems of extended detention periods.

          So feel free to crack on with your conspiracy theories. I’ll be around and about having a pop about tangible, indisputable erosions of our freedom in the here and now – such as the idea that anarchists should be shopped to the police for thoughtcrime or the u-turn on the DNA database. You know, actually trying to turn the tide rather than indulging in conspiracy theories.

          TNL

          • August 3, 2011 at 9:00 am

            Well, the theories of David Icke spring to mind

            See, this is the sort of very naughty thing you really shouldn’t do. No one is talking about Icke. You know the moment you bring that in, you’re mocking.

            What I don’t like is that my post had nothing to do with tinfoil in any way. I tried to avoid that like the plague.

            But mentioning him now simply tries to drag the serious intent of the post through association with a name no one wants to be associated with. Hell, I even steer clear of Alex Jones.

            Now this is a tactic which the left use and which I thought we were above.

            Very disappointed, TNL. I’m trying to stick to the facts here – that’s what I presented, not theories and I don’t appreciate it being dragged into tinfoil territory and associated with that.

            You are determined to mock, no matter what is presented – Lord T mentioned that. It doesn’t matter what chapter and verse you lay in front of someone like this – they’ll still say they want verifiable proof and chant conspiracy theory.

            It was explained in detail to you plus it’s in many places on the net that there is a vast gap between those who research and follow where the evidence leads and if it leads to a collusion or conspiracy, then it does – conspiracies happen – but if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t … and people who automatically believe in conspiracies, without backup.

            What offends me is that I presented a fiar amount of evidence above – real evidence and you come in and start cr***ing on about Icke and conspiracy theories. Sheesh!!

            Get real, man. It’s not that you disagree – that’s fine and let’s have an enquiry to find out for once and for all – but the persistence in continuing this auto-crap, just like leftists chanting “racist” the moment you try to discuss immigration.

            Will you please stop with this crap and if you have actual arguments to present – specific arguments, point by point – then present them, not this “Well I don’t believe but I’ve no basis to” and then chanting the buzz phrases.

            The New World Order stuff is pretty much classic conspiracy theory fare

            Are you in 2011? this is mainstream – it’s not even discussed in knowledgeable circles any more. What are SDRs? Let me ask you that.

            Yes, they’re the new version of currency in the new financial order:

            link to amazon.com
            link to knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu
            link to finextra.com

            I mean – this is mainstream financial talk. Nothing to do with Icke and his lizards. Nothing to do with conspiracy “theory”. It’s what’s happening.

            Wake up and smell the coffee, TNL. You’re a good chap but …. really!

          • Revolution Harry
            August 4, 2011 at 12:17 am

            Firstly, apologies James if I’ve inadvertently contributed to taking the thread slightly off topic. That said it’s as well these things are discussed. They have to be somewhere.

            TNL, the reason I asked you which you thought were ‘unrealistic and alarmist’ was because I had a feeling you’d mention David Icke. I have to take my hat off to Them, They’re good at what They do. Icke has been thoroughly exposed my many people. Sadly to little effect for most ‘truthers’ who still hang on his every word. Icke is the perfect example of the sort of dross you have to wade through in order to get closer to what’s actually happening. Nobody who is a threat to Them is going to have his books in all major bookstores, not just in this country, but across the world. Believe it or not he’s got an iPhone app as well.

            As just one example of the exposure of David Icke can I recommend the film below. If you get the opportunity you might find it interesting viewing.

            link to youtube.com

            I can’t help but say it’s interesting that you believe, apparently wholeheartedly, the government backed conspiracy theory and seemingly dismiss anything that contradicts it. I could critique your assessment of Norad’s unprecedented failures but I suspect I’d be wasting your time and mine.

            One final point. That many of the ruling ‘elites’ of this world regularly refer to something called a ‘New World Order’ is beyond doubt. The only debate is what they mean by it. The Fabian and Freemason H. G. Wells wrote a book using the very same title. In it he ‘expressed the idea that a ‘New World Order should be formed to unite the nations of the world in order to bring peace and end war’. George Bush made his infamous ‘New World Order’ speech where he spoke of ‘a world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders’ (there’s more I could say about the occult nature of the ‘vision of its founders). Our own, Fabian and Freemason, Gordon Brown is very fond of speaking about the ‘New World Order’ and has done so several times. I highlighted a lesser known occasion in a post on my blog. I asked the question, ‘Was the creation of a New World Order in the Labour party manifesto? A clearly defined policy that could be debated and discussed’. I entitled the piece, ‘What Gordon Brown is Prepared To Do For His New World Order’. I did this because I also posted a very good video by the journalist Anthony Lawson. He compared a response by Gordon Brown, in the same Iraq war select committee hearing, with a list of some of the truly awful consequences of that war. One of which was the horrific deformities that have resulted from the large scale use of depleted uranium. I include one picture as an example in the article but you can Google many more. This is what They are more than happy to inflict on a population they were supposedly liberating.

            link to revolutionharry.blogspot.com

            The evidence pertaining to the New World Order as being a sort of code word, used by the elites, for a world government is both compelling and overwhelming. They aren’t even really hiding it from you, indeed They can’t. What They are doing is intentionally mixing it with fanciful nonsense and deceptive New Age psychobabble, Icke being the perfect example. In so doing They prevent intelligent people such as yourself from investigating this subject to the degree that is required. More worryingly, in the case of Icke and others, They are manipulating ‘truthers’ into furthering the very agenda They are actively pursuing. Explaining how would take too long but I mention it in passing. The Icke Debunked video above will explain to some extent.

            Personally, it’s my humble opinion, that unless we acknowledge this agenda exists we fail to see events in Britain in the correct context. Thanks for your time.

            Harry.

        • Saltimbamba
          April 18, 2012 at 9:59 pm

          Harry, yours is easily the best and most concise explanation of the agenda that has threatened us (since before we were born) that I have ever read. We are now in end-game territory.

          “That is that there is a clear and identifiable agenda to create a one-world government and religious system sustained and supported by a global currency and financial system….In it, the world is to be completely restructured and national boundaries and sovereignty are, at best, to become secondary if not obliterated all together. This new paradigm is often sugar coated as ‘planetary citizenship’ in the ‘global village’ but the reality will be anything but.”

          All they need is the ‘right’ crisis to implement the final stages of their agenda. Next false-flag?? London Olympics 2012??? I for one am staying well away this Summer…

  5. August 1, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Well done for your persistence, James. I don’t know how many minds will be changed, but no one knows that.

  6. banned
    August 2, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Great piece James though in my case you are preaching to the converted.
    Some of your material I have come across before but much is new and I have a great deal more faith in what technical experts have to say rather than media or political pundits.

  7. fake
    August 2, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Unless you actually find the equivalent of a signed confession or order by the people involved, you are wasting your time.

    There are far to many arguments from both sides of the argument, by experts, that make it difficult to prove the case either way (strong arguments are not proof).

    And so It makes no difference, because without the real evidence, the signed bits of paper and witnesses, no one will be take to task.

    And as others say, what difference does it matter to the issues we face, terrorist attack or inside job, bad laws are still bad laws.

    • August 2, 2011 at 10:00 am

      I take that in the spirit in which it is said – that it doesn’t matter how correct it is, unless it’s signed and copied in triplicate, no one wants to know. John Clarke mad a joke some decades ago about Greg Chappell that unless you uprooted his stump, all three stumps, put them in a bag and delivered them to the pavilion, he wasn’t going to walk. Similar here.

    • Lord T
      August 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      You are joking. Even if it was signed and sealed it would be denied by those who do not believe. It will just be another piece of data.

  8. August 2, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Get some proof – any sort of real, verifiable proof – and you could shake the foundations of America. I don’t think it will happen.

    Sorry to say, I find this sort of thing falls into the category of tl;dr

    • August 2, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      RA:

      The problem is not the proof – the proof is right there, e.g. the fragments analysis. The problem is that people just don’t want to believe that, in a country sliding down, the people over them resort to this sort of thing. NIST is supposedly a standards authority, nothing more. Most people would see it as politically neutral.

      Now it’s been shown not to be, then the old Warren Report dismay was just around the corner. People don’t want to know. That’s the issue.

      LT:

      Must have cross-posted. Agree:

      You are joking. Even if it was signed and sealed it would be denied by those who do not believe. It will just be another piece of data.

  9. Antony
    August 2, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Rational Anarchist – “tl:dr….”

    Quite.

    It is entirely correct to say that proof would shake the foundations of America, and indeed the whole world. In order to get proof therefore long, independent and detailed investigations must occur. The very investigations both NIST and the US Government have refused.

    Look at the long list of actions and restrictions imposed on society since that horrible day. Invasions of sovereign countries, countless human beings killed, liberty snatched away, and now the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the official narrative is classed a terrorist.

    Excellent article, James.

    From acorns do mighty oak trees grow.

  10. August 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Let me show you what I mean. Here is the debunker who softens up his reader with attacks on conspiracy theorists before showing his “proof”.

    link to debunking911.com

    Now the entire complicated top half of the page is cut by one vid [of many]:

    link to youtu.be

    Then he tries to dazzle with an equation which has zero to do with the situation in building 7. To make it work, he has to “assume” this and “assume” that. He creates a strawman where he says the nanothermite had to cut horizontally.

    What utter BS. Even if it did, then what’s the problem. This stuff was either loade or it wasn’t. If it was loaded, it would have been loaded the right way, or do you dispute that?

    He says:

    Yet another absurd comparison from Jones. A small metal rod is NOT the same as a large column.

    Now he’s doing some very naughty things here. He’s taking the weak link in the chain – Jones, an amateur and ignoring the experts on the three vids on this site. He doesn’t quote them, you notice.

    Then he says that thermite does not act on a metal rod like on a metal column. What utter BS. There are two more things – he himself is no expert and he precedes anything he tries to put over with an ad hominem. He does it throughout.

    So not only is this guy no engineer but he’s no scholar. It’s pathetic. But it’s written in that earnest style, with charts, photos and diagrams which are meant to dazzle the DKs of the world. Oh yeah – he we have the real science.

    No we don’t – we don’t at all. If you thoroughly read that page, with no other page to compare it to, it can dazzle. Put it next to a small collation such as in this post and it simply doesn’t stand up. I was particularly interested how he’d answer the nano-thermite.

    This is an unequal contest. There are not two sides arguing at all. There is one side with the facts of the matter, insofar as they could be gleaned and then there are those trying to obfuscate on this, suppress information, put out BS science [just like the NPCC] and all in order to dazzle those who would normally support sane investigation.

    And what do these people do – the bloggers, pundits etc? They swallow the whole PTB line – they who pride themselves on their perspicacity. I’m just amazed.

    Antony’s right – the only way out of this is a panel of scientists and professionals from the field – those known to one side, those to the other and newbies. Each investigates in his/her own area.

    Hell, if they could put together that sort of outfit, I’d pay my tenner towards their costs.

  11. fake
    August 2, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    *I take that in the spirit in which it is said – that it doesn’t matter how correct it is, unless it’s signed and copied in triplicate*

    Almost, yes.

    *The problem is not the proof – the proof is right there, e.g. the fragments analysis.*

    It maybe proof, but it is not evidence (somewhat nonsensical sentence).

    Firstly such proof is prone to confirmation bias, that is that when you look at the facts, your conclusion of those facts may be biased upon your pre-judgement as to what occurred. There may be other external facts from that analysis that change the conclusion. Experts fall into this trap unwittingly, laymen run into it, no-one is immune to it.

    Second, it is not evidence in the sense that it wouldn’t fly in court. Imagine trying to use that as evidence in court (where you have to get over reasonable doubt or whatever). It would be so easy to get in a panel of experts who disagree with the conclusion, and it would be quite easy to find such people who are not doing it because they are paid up, but because in their opinion it is right/wrong, there are experts on both sides of the argument.

    And then, lastly, you do have to admit the possibility that you are missing information which may change the conclusion or confirm it, it is essentially a forensic examination with not all of the facts (because the building blew up, it is impossible to say you have 100% of the evidence, because 100% of the evidence no longer exists), therefore further doubt.

    There is just no way you can get that through a jury, they would struggle to understand it, there would always be reasonable doubt, so no way it will fly in court, and so you may have all the proof you want, but you have no evidence (e.g a signed order by the president and two witnesses).

  12. August 3, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Second, it is not evidence in the sense that it wouldn’t fly in court.

    Utter bollox. Those fragments would very much fly in court. Plus the computer diagrams of freefall. It is precisely the science which would fly in court and that’s why an investigation is in order. It happened with JFK, it happened with Kelly and in this situation, on the NIST inaccuracies alone and selective blocking of evidence, an enquiry is justified.

    Where do you get off with this “no evidence” bollox?

    And then, lastly, you do have to admit the possibility that you are missing information which may change the conclusion or confirm it

    Precisely – so have an enquiry where all this comes out. All that’s needed for an enquiry on a matter as serious as this is prima facie – and that is present here in abundance. The fisking of the NIST report alone raises serious questions.

    Why this vehemence in doing anything possible to prevent facts coming out? On any other issue, you’d be the one demanding an enquiry! Why endorse a shoddy government agency on this one?

    Just have the bloody enquiry and if the balance tips your way on that, then fine. That’s the way things should happen. But not like this. Not with assertion and slurring and suppressing evidence, selecting only parts of it and ignoring the engineers and scientists who are calling out that something is wrong here.

  13. fake
    August 3, 2011 at 9:36 am

    I give several paragraphs explaining myself, your response = utter bollox.

    Since when did you resort to such weak argumentation, been browsing 4chan?

    Did I say an enquiry was not justified, have I actually stated any opinion on the conclusions made. I just said you would never convict anyone with that level of proof, and any such inquiry would lead no where, and the why was explained above.

  14. fake
    August 3, 2011 at 9:39 am

    You have since edited your post, but I shan’t bother modifying my reply.

    • August 3, 2011 at 9:42 am

      I give several paragraphs explaining myself, your response = utter bollox.

      Since when did you resort to such weak argumentation, been browsing 4chan?

      Come on, Fake, don’t try to create something which isn’t there. It wasn’t an argument, weak or strong. It was a comment on your comment and then I give two paragraphs to explain after that.

      Getting dragged down into this has zero to do with what I did actually say:

      Those fragments would very much fly in court. Plus the computer diagrams of freefall. It is precisely the science which would fly in court and that’s why an investigation is in order. It happened with JFK, it happened with Kelly and in this situation, on the NIST inaccuracies alone and selective blocking of evidence, an enquiry is justified.

      Now, with the words “utter bollox removed”, there is an argument.

  15. fake
    August 3, 2011 at 9:59 am

    You are right.

    I’m utterly convinced someone would be convicted and charged with treason (carries a death sentence) based on computer models and conflicting expert testimonies.

    • August 3, 2011 at 10:17 am

      In the end, all I’m saying is that there are two reasons we need an enquiry [one newly introduced now]:

      1. The NIST report was shown to be flawed, which ties in with your “I’m utterly convinced someone would be convicted and charged with treason (carries a death sentence) based on computer models and conflicting expert testimonies”, plus the nanothermite in the dust has not been explained away and has been analysed. It shouldn’t have been there.

      2. The Zogby global poll:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      … showed that only a large minority accept Al Qaeda as the sole reason. I’m not saying that proves it’s otherwise. I’m saying that it warrants an independent enquiry.

      • August 3, 2011 at 10:22 am

        Sorry – error. Not Zogby but University of Maryland, College Park poll.

      • August 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm

        Just because lots of people want one, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we need one. And lots of people thinking something doesn’t mean that they are right or that it justifies an enquiry.

        I can tell you now for free that the outcome will be pretty much what we already know with a few “don’t knows” thrown in for good measure. There will then be outraged screams of “whitewash” from the usual suspects and so the cycle will start all over again.

        Just call me Mystic Meg…

  16. fake
    August 3, 2011 at 11:10 am

    And I still maintain it would be a complete waste of time.

    You have theories and questions, you have nothing that will point to any perps or convict anyone if you did. As I have explained, there is far to much reasonable doubt due to conflicting expert witness opinions, you do not have the smoking gun. Yea sure, you have inconsistent facts that need to be explained (your nanothermite), but ***explained they will be*** by various experts, and reasonable doubt you will have.

    You have no witnesses (of actually shenanigans taking place, I don’t count “I heard 3 explosions as credible *In court*), you have computer models, some blanks in the evidence, and facts that will be both accepted and disputed by equal numbers of experts.

    So let’s go further. Let’s say it was an inside job, well congratulations on playing the game to their tune. So you finally get enough momentum to get an enquiry going, but the conclusion is already forgone (for reasons I have given + if they can organise something like this, you think they can’t rig a simple enquiry), the enquiry will at it’s very best give a “not proven” verdict as they say in Scotland, the institution will be exonerated, people will on average end up trusting the verdict.

    And let us go even one step further, let us imagine the impossible and that you find out *bush did 9/11* as the ole internet meme says, so some people lose their jobs, a few people go to jail, maybe the democrats or republicans get a few more or less votes, and we get bored by 24/7 news coverage of the event for weeks.

    Woopde fucking do, huge amounts of effort for fuck all change, because you just spend all your time fighting a symptom of the problem.

  17. August 3, 2011 at 11:17 am

    It’s not up to you. You’re one of the 46%. I’m one of the 54%. there is prima facie evidence and according to the legal framework of both countries, if there is something of this nature, there is an enquiry.

    I keep saying, over and over – it’s not up to you to judge. It is up to an independent enquiry. It may well vindicate you but the odds are that it’s not. The evidence in the post [and I don't believe you've read all of it] indicates this.

    From link to garyjones.org:

    One of the indicators of the anti-intellectualism of the intelligentsia is their refusal to think about socio-political events. They don’t engage with the world in any sort of collective cognition that evaluates different ideas or information. They don’t listen to the words of others or read for comprehension, instead they behave like lawyers arguing a case and react to each bit of testimony or evidence with the objective of refuting it, even if true or insightful, because they only wish to win their case. While you are speaking to them they are thinking of counter arguments, not the possible significance of what you are saying. It takes very little mental effort to find some way for them to continue to slide along in well worn mental ruts, and are only comfortable when slotted into their path in such a fashion, on mental rails that go to the same old destinations.

    Just saying like. No comment on any reader or commenter at OoL, of course. Just thought it an interesting quote. ;-)

  18. August 3, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    James,

    Once again you take what I say I remove it from its context! I was responding to a comment asking me what I though was alarmist and unrealistic in terms of conspiracy – hence I cited Icke and another example of what some see as a conspiracy theory. I am more than entitled to share my opinons, especially when they are directly asked for! This site is supposed to be about freedom of speech, for God’s sake! And I don’t need to be tutted at or patronised for doing something you perceive “naughty”. Yeah, answering a question honestly is “naughty”. In future, shall I run every comment I want to make on this site past you to make sure you are ok with it?

    And once again I stress my point is not to refute what you’ve written point by point – I’ve got better things to do with my life – rather, I was pointing out that while these conspiracy theories are being expounded, liberties are being eroded elsewhere in the here and now. You see value in these theories; you think they can help with the cause of liberty. Fine. I disagree. Which should be equally fine. But if you look across the comments I have made across this post I have tried to avoid passing judgment on the research you have done – because, once again, my point is not about whether you are right or wrong in what you present above, but whether there it advances the cause of liberty.

    TNL

    • August 3, 2011 at 2:01 pm

      while these conspiracy theories are being expounded

      There it is again. What does it take to get you to understand that there are NO theories here. There is evidence and in the case of the scientific evidence, actually proof. The post is a series of pieces of evidence, arranged one under the other.

      It wasn’t even a collection of opinions, except from the experts. The eyewitnesses were only asked for what they saw.

      Repeat – there-is-n–conspiracy-theory.

      There is a call for an enquiry, based on :

      1. The flawed nature of the NIST report;
      2. The reports of the scientists who tested the nanothermite;
      3. The survey which showed that 54% didn’t buy Al Qaeda.

      Those are simply grounds for an enquiry, NOT a conspiracy theory. And as there are grounds, there should be one. And the only way we can get that is for people to push for it, not to fight tooth and nail NOT to have one.

      On any other issue, you’d call for something to be investigated – why not on this? And if you say “because there’s no evidence”, then we’re going round in circles because there is plenty of evidence. I listed much of it in the post.

      And so on and so on.

      As for having better things to worry about, this has direct bearing on all the anti-liberty legislation which followed. The connection between an outrage and a follow-up draconian tightening has now been too often and too numerous now to ignore.

      There was deceit and outright misrepresentation in the NIST response. Opposing opinion was suppressed. Legislation followed. Happy they’d got away with it, further legislation and the boosting of FEMA’s powers followed Katrina, which no one thought a conspiracy. It jsut snowballed but it began with 911 or more exactly, 1993 in America.

      Meanwhile, the RIPA over here began and all the other laws Labour brought in, all designed to both pry into our lives and restrict our freedoms. but TNL, they stemmed from incidents and therefore those incidents are valid to investigate and the conclusions be made public.

      But if you look across the comments I have made across this post I have tried to avoid passing judgment on the research you have done

      You say that and then follow that up with:

      while these conspiracy theories are being expounded

      So that undercuts the very point you’re making. That line just now says your opinion of them and as I’ve been saying all along – fine, that’s your opinion but the opposite opinion has evidence supporting it and that is sufficient for an enquiry.

      It has been before, it will be in future – why not on this issue?

      • August 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm

        I think you’ll find that Harry was expounding theories, and the comment you took out of context was responding to him.

        Furthermore I don’t call “further investigation” on “any other issue”. That is simply not true. It is also worth noting that I am not calling for an enquiry but I am also not fighting “tooth and nail NOT to have one”. I am saying, once again, that the cause of liberty is best advanced by pursuing other issues.

        But I don’t have time for any more of this, and I don’t have the patience to be patronised anymore. You pursue liberty in your way, James, I’ll do so in mine.

        TNL

  19. fake
    August 3, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    *Just saying like. No comment on any reader or commenter at OoL, of course. Just thought it an interesting quote. *

    You really are a smartass sometimes, We all know who that quote is directed at, don’t hide behind niceness and smiles.

    And how many times now have you accused people who disagree with you of being little sheeple, and mud minded, I lose count.

    Your quote is more ironic than insightful as it describes your behaviour more than anyone else’s in this thread, your bias in your musings is as clear as a neon sign 100 meters wide.

    I never actually judged, and never said we shouldn’t have an enquiry. Simply stated my opinion that such an enquiry, and such effort to obtain one, is wasted time and effort, noise and fury that achieves nothing. I state that such an enquiry is unlikely to come to any conclusion better than “not proven” because however compelling your evidence, it DOES NOT get over reasonable doubt, only your bias stops you seeing this.

    To put it into metaphor = You are talking about the murder of several thousand people, a crime that carries the death sentence. What you post is a series of expert opinions, based on partial evidence, computer models, and third hand witnesses. Yes, it DOES make a very strong argument, I do not deny that, I would not deny that it isn’t worthy of an enquiry, but it isn’t enough to hang someone, it would get no more than a “not proven” verdict, oh and you don’t have an accused.

    So excuse me if I couldn’t give two figs about the issue.

    I also made another very important point, that being that if it is true, all you are doing is playing their game, fighting a symptom of the disease. But as Gary Jones said, some people “don’t listen to the words of others or read for comprehension”.

    *The evidence in the post [and I don't believe you've read all of it] indicates this.*

    And again I will emphasis this. You really just can’t seem to accept that people may look at the same evidence as you, and draw a different conclusion, you always either come up with some pithy quote about people being sheep, or refuse to accept they have looked at it all.

  20. fake
    August 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    *As for having better things to worry about, this has direct bearing on all the anti-liberty legislation which followed. The connection between an outrage and a follow-up draconian tightening has now been too often and too numerous now to ignore.*

    Symptoms, symptoms, symptoms.

    • August 3, 2011 at 5:58 pm

      And it is the reactions that followed that need to draw our fire.

  21. August 3, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    Nice. Very interesting but I suggest you post the whole thing: this edited version seems too truncated ;-)

    • August 3, 2011 at 11:00 pm

      I know, Span Ows but I ran out of time. It should have been twice the length.

  22. August 4, 2011 at 8:53 am

    IA Richards, in Science and Poetry [1926], said:

    We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forceable ion his enunciation. In fact we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.

    The debunking side, so far, has been all bluster and shoddy science, not remotely interested in pursuing the actual science of the matter and trying to beat down the opposing view through calling it names.

    Whatever I subsequently found, and I did find much, that was always uppermost in the mind.

    And don’t forget Gary Jones:

    One of the indicators of the anti-intellectualism of the intelligentsia is their refusal to think about socio-political events. They don’t engage with the world in any sort of collective cognition that evaluates different ideas or information. They don’t listen to the words of others or read for comprehension, instead they behave like lawyers arguing a case and react to each bit of testimony or evidence with the objective of refuting it, even if true or insightful, because they only wish to win their case.

    While you are speaking to them they are thinking of counter arguments, not the possible significance of what you are saying. It takes very little mental effort to find some way for them to continue to slide along in well worn mental ruts, and are only comfortable when slotted into their path in such a fashion, on mental rails that go to the same old destinations.

    The science of the 911 dust has not been answered, the experts in their filed have not been answered. All there’s been on the other side is abuse [and Chris Snowdon was at it yesterday], bluster and no science offered to address what Harrit, Basile and Chandler asked and showed the results of.

    And how do you answer Tom Sullivan? And what about John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report, caught lying by a student who asked him a question at a college address?

    This is never addressed – just broad strokes of the debunker brush, nothing specific. It’s not just pathetic, it’s dangerous that people would be so hoodwinked and more than that – happy to be hoodwinked.

  23. Jens Kaufenberg
    August 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Hi James.

    Ooops! I’m a bit late to the party here aren’t I. Oh well, I just hope that this doesn’t languish un-read.
    I understand your frustration at the response from a few of your readers / contributors to this fine blog regards to both your excellent pieces on WTC7. However, I think one of your antagonists – ‘Longrider’ has it correct where he writes –

    “Sure, there are sociopaths in our midst and some of them reach high office. Nothing new in that. However, there is no credible evidence that the US government, its agencies or the owners of the buildings murdered their own citizens despite what the makers of Loose Change might want us to believe.”

    He is right on all counts but the following may conflict somewhat with LR’s current perception of why he is right…

    Ok – I’m gonna start with a few Q&As, but first have a look at this… link to wunderground.com Scroll down to the ‘hourly observations’ section and note the conditions of the sky over NYC between 9.51 AM and 2.51 PM on the day in question. N.B: ‘Scattered cloud’ is defined meteorologically as between 10% and 50% cover. Get the gist of the importance of this information and the following should be more readily digestible.

    ‘Was WTC7 imploded?’

    I’d say if it wasn’t then we should be discussing aliens, death rays, HAARP, mini-nuclear weapons, ‘JuliaM’s’ Antarctic entrance to a hollow earth or indeed the kookiest of the lot that it was ultimately bought down by debris ejected from the collapse of another building located some 120 meters distant.

    ‘So if it was imploded wouldn’t that mean that it had to be pre-prepared way in advance of 19, box cutter wielding, 72 virgin crazed crazies hijacking a brace of 767s, flying them at impossible speeds and slicing clean through a pair of rather large, steel and concrete towers?’

    …err, yes. A demolition job on this scale requires many months of prep work – certainly not an operation that could be cobbled together in an afternoon.

    ‘Could that then mean that WTC1 and 2 were subjected to the same treatment?’

    Certainly.

    ‘But how the hell did they manage all this without anyone noticing?’

    Sorry if I sound a bit sarky here James but the answer to this puzzle is at least partly revealed by the picture you’ve included under the title of this thread. The picture you have there is not WTC7, neither is it any other building in existence or deceased, rather it’s just a crude computer generated image.

    ‘Alright smartarse, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede its a fake…so what? There are a thousand and one other examples and videos, suppose they’re all dodgy too are they?’

    Yes, they are.

    ‘Can’t be. I saw it live on T.V.’

    And this is the only real, tangible and admissible evidence we have that an almighty, God awful and terrifying fraud has been perpetrated. As you correctly point out, ALL physical evidence was disposed of without ANY forensic analysis and in double quick time except for…uh hum…pristine Arabic passports and mad terrorist type headscarves.

    ‘Surely, you’re not going to suggest that the planes were faked too?’

    Undoubtedly. If they were real, then on 9/11 all known physics textbooks were so many Andy Pandy scripts. What we saw were simply the deranged imaginations of feeble and corrupt minds, the product of which is a crap digital movie produced as a vehicle for massive and on-going fraudulent gain, a pre-text for illegal and on-going wars and as we have seen, an excuse for a progressive clamp down on our freedoms.

    ‘Bollocks…there were thousands of eye-witnesses.’

    Actually only a handful (that are documented and out in the public domain) and all of them are connected in one way or the other to the mainstream media networks. Don’t get me wrong here – people DID see the actual towers burning, they saw smoke, lots and lots of smoke and a few probably saw some pretty spectacular balls of fire, these real events were roughly – but not quite synched to ‘Bin Laden’s..Have I got some news for you’ that the rest of the world were watching via the telly. Also it is worth bearing in mind that the entirety of Lower Manhattan was sealed off and the process of complete evacuation followed immediately after the first; let’s say bang.

    ‘So just what the hell are you saying?? That the world trade centre was not actually destroyed and we’re all living in some sort of parallel universe or something?’

    Of course that is one aspect that is not in any way under contention from either the ‘twoof’ movement or advocates of the official line. The entire complex was demolished on 11 Sep’ 2001 but no photographic or film stock exists of these events, instead, they were substituted by a rubbish combination of ‘Independence day’, ‘Cloverfield’ and a dash of Kubrick symbolism chucked into the mix for good measure; minus the quality acting. Shit, yes; but without doubt the highest grosser of all time.

    ‘What tosh! What about the people taking their own photos and vid’s?’

    No point in going into technicalities, but no private photograph or video has emerged that withstands scrutiny. All existing, supposed ‘amateur records’ have been proven false through a combination of contradiction, impossibility and the ever present stamp of digital manipulation. And once again, almost all are attributed to those with links to the media.

    ‘Well, what ever floats your boat. Still don’t see how all those buildings could have been wired for demo’ without anyone noticing.’

    In the case of WTC7 there is currently very little information as to its overall tenancy on the day in question except for its ‘conspiratorial’ housing of departments of the CIA and such. However, there is mounting evidence that its neighboring twin towers were largely if not entirely empty (bar the lobby areas, observation decks and ‘windows’ restaurant). They were effectively redundant; a white, asbestos filled elephant from the beginning with many floors not having seen a lease contract signed during the entirety of their existence. By the time ‘D-day’ arrived – the ‘slow evacuation’ process (accelerated somewhat by the ‘Al-Qaeda attack’ in 1993) rendered the towers empty and by empty I don’t just mean devoid of people but devoid of everything necessary to facilitate a successful ‘Silverstein pull’ which means a complete gutting. Not that even the rubble photographs have not been pissed about with, but have you ever seen, say, a lone chair? a bashed up keyboard a filing cabinet, in fact anything that could be associated with the office environment within those apocalyptic images? Ha harr! Pancaked man – pancaked – all turned to dust. How really very convenient. It should also be worth remembering that 7 floors of both 1 and 2 were beneath street level within a caisson some 80 ft deep as protection from the Hudson river…that’s a lot of out of sight and secure volume at the ‘business’ end of the towers. link to 911research.wtc7.net Think ‘Jack Firebrace’ from Seb Faulks ‘Birdsong’ and we may have a rational explanation as to the 10 ft high pile of rubble that was 47 floors without a basement of a fully occupied 7…dunno, just spec’ on my part.

    ‘Oh yeah – course it was! Except we saw people leaping out of 1 and 2 to their deaths.’

    Look carefully. The ‘jumpers’ are most certainly a hugely important part of the drama that is intended to shock, anger and then to steer to an un-questionable acceptance for the need of severe retribution – except that they are as real as ET’s Elliot on his flying bike.

    ‘Oh my God…he’s gonna be telling us next that all the other victims are fake too.’

    Mostly, perhaps a few unfortunate souls were caught up in what could be described as a pretty reckless operation but almost all that are listed on various ‘memorial sites’ are fictitious. If you have a few voyeuristic hours to spare, take a morbid tour of the CNN site and ask yourself the following: are those really the best images available from the families of lost loved ones – if they could find one at all? Are those likely sounding names? Did the same person pen every single sickly, sappy, meaningless condolence – again, if they could be bothered to do so in the first place? You be the judge…link to cnn.com As a footnote to this paragraph I know that some people reading this will be thinking ‘How utterly crass, how despicably deplorable. I knew someone who lost their life in this act of wickedness – you f****** a**’***!!!’ And this is the one belief that serves to prevent a rational and cold hearted look at the facts. Imagine how different the debate would be if the total list of victims (depends which memorial site you put your faith in!) instead, ran to a big fat zero. Apologies if it offends, but confidence in this allows me to say that your ‘known victims’ are nothing more than the stuff of 7 degrees North of kevin Bacon.

    You really are a f****** a**’*** aren’t you. What about all the relatives, husbands, wives that we’ve seen? What about all those heartrending missing posters plastered up all over town?

    Paid up actors, pure and simple. There were not many of them to begin with and now of course those numbers have diminished yet further as their ‘contracts’ expire. ‘The Jersey girls’ are still going strong; ‘lobbying’ the ex Bush admin’ for the ‘twoof’ whilst clutching mug shots of their dear and cherished but the reality is that they have lost nothing apart from any last vestiges of morality. As for the missing persons posters, well, has that not struck you as – err odd? Would you do the same thing? Would you photocopy up some crap image of a loved one as if he / she were nothing more than a pet gone AWOL accompanied by something like – ‘If you see this man…covered in dust, probably with a steel girder sticking out the side of his head wandering the streets of Manhattan please call this number so’s we can come and collect him!?’ No…no rational or sane person would do such a thing, it’s all just part of the childish screenplay – a since repeated part of the ‘terror for the masses’ formula I’m afraid to say – and the only truly sad thing about it is that we have become so accustomed and unquestioning to this blitheness that we just lap it all up.

    ‘OK. Nice try fruitcake. But I just don’t get the rationale of replacing reality – which even you admit to – with some sort of David Copperfield made for T.V illusion. Why not just film the evidently real destruction – and again, (not that I’m really that interested) how do you explain away the discrepancies of this with what the common man witnessed on the streets?

    Simples. The reality of it would have been way, way too obvious for the goggle box and the development of something the perpetrators of the hoax had perhaps foreseen – the ease of video sharing some four years later on the internet. We’ve all seen legit footage of buildings being explosively demolished and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the actual WTC complex take down looked any different, i.e. nothing like what we were dished up with – absurd, symbolic mushroom clouds of Armageddon included. Having said this though, it is true to say that the destruction of WTC7 did appear to resemble reality a lot more closely. I can assure you though, that all clips and stills of this event are also bent as a nine bob note – like all the rest of it – just crude digital animations and to this you may wonder why they didn’t bother being a little more imaginative. I can only speculate..as sorry to say, I don’t have the 9/11 producer tied to a chair with a red hot poker up his ass and being made to talk. Lets just say that they desired ‘conspiracy’ to swirl..job done on that front! And / or to impress upon people the nonsense that steel and concrete mega structures do in fact collapse very easily – all the time in fact – with or without ‘Pixel Air’ flying into the side of them.
    In terms of the man on the street; let’s take an imaginary role a little closer to home. We’re all off to work in surrounding areas of the Swiss Re’ building in the city of London. Perhaps we’re already ensconced sipping a nice ‘skinny latte’ and browsing the headlines of our favourite newspaper ‘The Guardian’ whilst pretending to be productive for the benefit of all mankind. Suddenly the fire alarm goes off. Damn – haven’t heard that before! Anyway, before you know it, you’re back out on the street with those lazy layabouts who have yet to make it through the revolving doors. Sirens are blazing left right and centre, cops are taping off streets and barking orders for an orderly procession away from what you see as a giant gherkin, belching smoke out of what appears to be a gaping hole. You rummage into your canvas man bag for your phone and then realise, that of course – this is 2001! It doesn’t have a bloody camera and I’ve gone and well forgotten my shoulder mounted betamax – bugger! (not that it would have functioned even if I did) Sod it. I’ll just have to be herded home through pre-planned evacuation routes and find out whatever the hell this is on T.V.

    I guess rather obviously I too have been churned round the 9/11 mill. Initially because of an admittedly ‘wrong’ fascination at the unreal horror of it but continued because of a growing sense of unease with the realisation of some rather glaring inconsistencies to the official narrative…the subject of this page not being the least of them, along with that ridiculous little hole in the side of the Pentagon and stupid excavator trench at Shanksville (two simple diversionary events designed to keep people glued to their T.V sets). Oh yes, the journey is a long and frustrating one and it is compounded by what I believe now to be both the deliberate inclusion of anomalies and simple ‘mis-understandings of physics’ (not surprising if you consider our digital animators to be only that…digital animators). This serves to send anyone who scrutinizes the available visual material – believing it to represent reality – into a conspiratorial tizzy but ultimately back to where he / she started, non the wiser but for sure a great deal more confused and frustrated.

    On the back of these ‘mistake anomalies’ (the laughably silly collapse sequences, the cartoon impact holes, etc etc) and ‘deliberate anomalies’ (the flashes immediately prior to impact, explosive ‘squibs’ the mysterious underbelly of the ‘planes’ and dare I say it – the discovery of ‘nanothermite’ particles), we have seen various ‘truth’ movements and supposedly independent documentaries emerge. The FBI connected ‘Loose Change’ (aye – tis true), AE911, The History channel, Alex Jones and a whole raft of independent blogs and YT accounts. Thing is though, what, exactly are they picking apart? Indeed. A third rate work of digital fiction that only became ‘real’ the instant it was broadcast by our trusted news networks masquerading this pile of dung as ‘live’ T.V. With the exception of a few, genuinely concerned but misinformed persons, these movements etc are just part of the game to keep the suspicious away from the terrifying reality that the West’s MSM and therefore by default – governments, are indeed fully controlled by a few twisted, amoral megalomaniacs who wish nothing good for the rest of humanity whatsoever…of whom I can only say for certain that they do not include myself amongst their ranks, or me Dad, as he spends far to much time growing vegetables and grumbling about the cost of golf club membership.

    James; two excellent and very well written articles and hats doffed for helping to keep the debate of this most important of important historical events alive and kicking. 9/11 was not the first or indeed last of its kind, in fact it is strongly suspected that our team of bullshit merchants were at it again just a few weeks ago in sleepy old Norway and I’m afraid that this nonsense will continue until they are exposed as the naughty little pranksters they are. But, hope is on the horizon! All that is actually required to return Earth to a semblance of normality, relative peace, harmony, individual prosperity, trust and freedoms is to say, run a lawsuit against the BBC for airing fraudulent material and passing it off as real (oh yeah…one would have to conclude that a good few beeboids have full knowledge above the ranks of Jane Standley, ‘Standlying’ in front of a blue screen.)

    The beauty of a case such as this is that it would not require experts in physics, metallurgy, civil engineering, aeronautics, ballistics or any other area of expertise that’d no doubt bamboozle a jury selected from the upper echelons of MIT. No, all that is needed for a successful prosecution (doesn’t have to be dear old aunty – could just as well be CNN, NBC…even FOX) is the presentation of documented, undeniable and thankfully un-erasable proof that it was not commercial airliners that were hijacked by murderous criminals back in September 2001 but only our airwaves and collective brains.

    For sure – given the weeks of coverage, ‘outrage’ and self righteous huff ‘n’puff over a few News International hacks listening in on other peoples phone messages we may imagine that the busting of 9/11 as a hideous fraud that involves the absolute complicity of the US / UK media networks and most certainly, many once revered / detested names – may in fact prove to be a rather more interesting topic of conversation around dinner tables. Of course, the implications of this would be truly extraordinary and I see no reason to believe that it would not eventually lead to a complete route of the insidious corruption ( “….perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life”) infesting ALL of our power structures that we so badly need. Doubt whether they’d get away with much more AGW claptrap either – which would be a bonus! Plus, I suppose it would be reasonable to assume that the families of personnel killed / maimed in operations as a result of Walt Disney’s ‘Little twin towers on the prairie’ might be a tad pissed as might the good citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the trials for these crimes against humanity would surely make Nuremberg look like a contested parking ticket at Croydon magistrates.

    One more thing concerning NIST. Obviously it is has proven itself to be yet another corrupted establishment being abused as a vehicle for the old ‘appeal to authority’ meme just as the Royal Society is being abused by greenie activists to promote the man made global warming agenda. NIST, of course have been found wanting from the off with nothing except laughable explanations and obfuscation throughout. Never mind all of this though, as they have made one rather large howler that confirms what I have laid out above and joyously asserts their sphincter fibrillating nervousness that significant numbers of the public are at last beginning to grasp the reality or more the ‘unreality’ of the situation.

    As you probably know, during 2010, NIST released a whole raft of ‘previously unseen footage’ of the events in question but now in ‘glorious technicolor’ and HD. Really? Are we supposed to believe that these videos and stills have done nothing but collect dust for the best part of a decade under what were obviously professional photographers / videographers mattresses, cupboards what have you, apparently without another thought as to their significance?…what a laugh! I’d suggest that a slightly more likely scenario is this: Realising that their original ‘Towering Inferno 2’ is leaking pixels like a sieve, a decision was made to utilise the latest available software to re-create some of the scenes that have been so indelibly burned into our grey matter only this time they would stand up to analysis – thus proving that it really did happen as they said it had. Well, nice try fellas. It certainly all looks crisper / shinier and more realistic but I’m afraid to say that anybody armed with nothing more sophisticated than a reasonable resolution monitor and a basic knowledge of digital manipulation can see instantly that it is just yet more rubbish – and why you bothered in the first place is beyond me, as no matter how many ‘new’ pieces of footage are released it is not ever going to erase what was originally broadcast.

    I mentioned earlier on, that 9/11 was not the first major hoax to be foisted upon the public consciousness achieved primarily through that ‘weapon of mass deception’ that you probably have lurking about your house somewhere – nope, this auspicious accolade belongs tooooo – wait for it – yes, the ‘moon landings!’ ‘HA HA HA HA HAAAAARR! Christ! Did I really read that right? Mate…you almost had my interest then but now you’ve gone and blown it completely. Don’t just don a tin foil hat, fashion yourself a whole suit – you utter muppet!’
    Yes, yes yes but I would urge you to get a grasp of the significance of this tall tale of fantasy during that well known technological era as it was achieved through virtually identical methods as the subject in hand. I recommend reading the following link before going further into what I have set out as introduction to this monstrous abuse of media fakery as, most importantly, it should confirm to the sceptical that ‘conspiracies’ on a 9/11 scale are indeed possible and actually far less complicated to achieve than one might imagine. It also confirms the horrifying fact that there are indeed people within our midst who are willing to conduct their entire lives on the back of falsehoods and deception knowingly to the detriment of all others. Besides, it is also a most excellent, hilarious and enjoyable read! – link to davesweb.cnchost.com

    If you finish the above and are still not convinced that the moon shots were anything other than a ridiculous and preposterous, very much terrestrial, made for T.V lie then obviously go no further. Otherwise, first have a look at this relatively short but entertaining clip which describes a likely method employed by ‘21st Century POX’ to achieve continuity with the ‘plane impacts’ and resulting fireballs from differing angles.. link to livevideo.com then read the introductions and watch the film here – link to septemberclues.info

    I recognise that this is at first a complete head spinner. It can also induce a feeling of anger – as said – many have invested a great deal of their time into this and it is never pleasant being told that you have wasted that time, effectively because you have been duped (stated through personal experience). Of course, taking on this subject from an entirely new perspective is difficult so it maybe necessary to view it several times before moving on to more in-depth analysis such as ‘hoi polloi’s’ outstanding research into the non-existent victims.

    The September Clues film was first released back in 2007 and should be regarded as something of a work in progress so inevitably there are some mistakes and assumptions that are no longer relevant or have been superseded by threads in the SC forums – and for all you ‘debunkers’ out there, you’ll find – “Debunk a September clue.” Despite being a topic of conversation for more than a year and now running at 18 pages in length, nobody has yet been successful…go on, have a go – there’s a fully paid up trip to Mars on offer courtesy of NASA!

    Jens Kaufenberg.

    P.S

    Phew…blimey! All I was initially planning on doing was posting a link or two and ended up scribbling a bloody great diatribe that probably no one will read. Well, I really hope that somebody does and of course eventually comes to accept it as the truth. If you are that person, then you need to spread your knowledge as far and wide as is possible; it isn’t easy and I would avoid speaking of it directly to friends and family who will most likely dismiss you (for now) as the proverbial fruit-bat and offer up advice on counseling. Instead, try linking some of the material via e-mail or post under popular mainstream blogs – (who often include images that are digitally manipulated or just plain false through impossibility to embellish their stories). If you’ve read and watched the above you will be something of an expert at recognizing still-frame and video fraud, point this out to authors of such pieces together with links to the Big Kahuna..he he, they really do not like it up ‘em! Don’t bother with well known forums such as the aforementioned ‘Loose Change’ as rather tellingly they actually run a warning announcing that ‘anyone referring to the research of September Clues or ‘no-plane theorists’ will be banned – planes hit the buildings, end of.’ Or words to that effect – which merely serves to encourage as it confirms that we are far from dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    Yeah..so this as our best opportunity to sort these nefarious c***s out. Most of us equipped with a half functioning brain now realise that all western governments are now doing the open bidding of others who are most certainly not the voices of their respective nations. These ‘others’ have till now been able to hide their vicious crimes against humanity for their own, sick criminal gain by remaining invisible to the public eye, we’ve all got our suspicions but the all important evidence is never there to flush these cockroaches from the crevice. However, with the crime of 9/11, they have made a serious mistake in that we now have an entirely tangible ‘conduit’ that every man woman and child can identify with that will undoubtedly snake directly into the centre of the stinking cesspool of their various ‘clubs’, ‘groups’ and ‘committees’. That conduit is of course our MSM. Nail just one, supposedly independent branch of it for active and knowing participation in fraud that has led to murder on a grand scale (my vote goes to the BBC) and the trail will inevitably lead to our unseen mortal enemies, then by default through the miserable little pecking orders of their ranks, right down to Common little shit Purposes.
    The only question is…are there enough lampposts?

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.