« Weekend movie recommendation | Main | MECA and MOCHA »

Sunday, September 11, 2011


Henry Kissinger: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a
country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are
much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

Each time someone who should know better directly expresses to me sentiment in regards to .8181..., I do everything I can to hide my disbelief that people older than me can somehow still be more naive than myself, and instead offer a quiet, "but terrible things happen every day in other places. We've been mostly insulated from the sufferings of this world." My generation shouldn't have to teach our predecessors not to suck, but okay, I guess we will.

And by "sentiment", I guess I mean "belabored attempt at being perceived as empathetic".

Bearing in mind that our society is run by lawyers and stockbrokers who work in swank offices, it's hardly surprising if we more readily empathize with lawyers, stockbrokers, and other middle class folks who died at the office, fer chrissake than with a few priests and activists somewhere "over there". The general outrage I recall 10 years ago seemed to be of the "that could have been me" variety (setting aside the possibility of knowing at least one person who died in the towers). So perhaps we should add a further proviso: "Next time, be someone who matters, losers".

I dig it, Amanda - know just what you mean. Peeps be stunted. I don't think there's an educational solution for it.

Was bin Laden thinking perhaps thinking of other events which also occurred on Sept. 11th in history:

1941 – Ground is broken for the construction of The Pentagon.
1978 – U.S. President Jimmy Carter, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel meet at Camp David and agree on the Camp David Accords a framework for peace between 
1982 – The international forces that were guaranteeing the safety ofPalestinian refugees following Israel's 1982 Invasion of Lebanon leaveBeirut. Five days later, several thousand refugees are massacred in theSabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Was it ever established that the 11th was picked for symbolic purposes? I thought it was just a day that worked. It seems that statistically it's like two people in the same room having the same birthday - just a much better chance of these coincidences occuring randomly than one might expect. A lot has been made about the symbolism or picking the financial sector and the Pentagon but I read that as 100% functional - shutting down the Machine. Pick just about any day and the US did something horrible to someone on it.

By the by, as John I think knows I first came across this blog checking to see if other people had been banned from the CommonDreams site and/or had their posts disappeared. Well some months (a couple of years?) later I signed in with yet another account and I'm getting censored over there again, although not yet banned.

In both cases my posts disappeared today after disputing "facts" presented by 9/11 'truthers.' In one case I did get a bit abusive I suppose (although did not cuss) and the post is GONE. I provided a link as to sane reasons that WTC 7 fell and now that's missing. The person who I responded to suggested that I was mentally unstable and their post is still there.

In another a 'truther' was claiming that somehow the video format of the bin Laden tapes played on al Jazeera should have been different (NTSC for some reason?!?!?) and impossible to use (I know, I know... I don't understand either). I responded that NTSC VCRs are available in the Gulf if that were a concern and I had no idea why al Jazeera wouldn't have access to one.

One paragraph, no cursing, just a small piece of info and the post DISAPPEARED within the last few hrs. On top of not being allowed to criticize Democrats and not being allowed to criticize CommonDreams censorship it appears someone over there feels a need to protect 9/11 'truthers' from the ravages of reality too.

Well, this seems like an appropriate time to ask. How did building 7 collapse? Confession: I am -- not by choice, since the brain's best estimate of factual reality is not a matter of volition -- a believer in the "demolition hypothesis". The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth stuff makes sense to me, whereas the counterarguments I have read heretofore do not.

Of course it's no good mentioning this with people I know, nor most places and times on the internet; but, largely thanks to our host, the odds that one can in good faith voice a minority opinion here and get a thoughtful answer or discussion are considerably higher than elsewhere.

Apparently the support beams were weakened by heat and other stresses from the collapse of the two tall towers. The WTC complex was/is connected by a lot of underground structures, including a sprinkler system that got cut off by the collapse of towers 1 & 2. Cockburn did a column encapsulating these details on CounterPunch within the last week. There are a LOT of truther comments on CD, which I find sad. If this is the 'left' we're in trouble.

A lot of the 'truthers' look up the melting point of certain metals, note this is higher than the burning temp of jet fuel and therefore assume that the fires "could not" bring down buildings. What they're missing is that metals lose a very large % of their ability to maintain a structure at fractional % of their melting point. In fact 'melting point' is as the name suggests when the metal turns liquid. Long before that point beams will droop and sag and eventually buildings become a house of cards with some of the cards missing.

Back in about 2003 I was in an extended email debate with several friends about 9/11. Many of these were generally intelligent people but it was clear that they had no solid math or science education, so when conspiracy people on the net misused or misinterpreted various terms no one was noticing.

I recall doing all sorts of back of the envelope calculations like how improbable it would be that a security camera which takes X frames per second (fewer than standard movie camera) pointed perpendicular to the path of a plane going hundreds of miles per hour could capture in any particular frame a good image of said plane. Even crediting the plane moving relatively slowly and the camera having a faster speed than I expect it did there was still something like a 1 in 500 chance that the camera they were all upset over could have at all captured a decent image. I said I would have been suspicious if the Pentagon DID have a clear shot from that camera! I also worked out the ratio of the size of the planes to the size of the buildings and it was almost literally the scale of flying a needle into a haystack, especially not approaching a flat side at a perfect 90 degree angle. Hard to miss - VERY hard to miss - the WTC. As I pointed out on a CD post that was banned, IF YOU KEEP THE BUILDING IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU WILL HIT IT. Not much piloting experience needed for that!

There's also a hangup with a lot of 'truthers' all 3 buildings as to them falling "perfectly down" or something similar. Well, yeah, it's freefall once there's nothing holding the building up any longer. Down is the direction things tend to fall unless pushed sideways by another force. People seem to expect Warner Bros. cartoon physics, for the buildings to "remember" to fall sideways since the plane hit from the side earlier. I ask again and again what direction they expected the buildings to fall if it weren't a conspiracy and I never get a cohesive answer.

I have recently been looking at 911 Truth evidence and I have to say I am astounded that I did not question the event sooner. I guess like most people the implications of our government covering the act up or being complicit was too much for me to bear so I assumed the theorists were "crazy".

But if you are interested in the facts there was a multi-day hearings held last week called the Toronto Hearings. Videos are here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thetorontohearings via http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

I watched this video http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17188564 which is very interesting and contradicts the "debunking" that Quizmasterchris attempts above (the scientists hypothecizes a "deceptive demolition hypothesis."

I didn't describe that last video link very well. The scientist giving the lecture notes that molten iron and other metals present at the WTC site indicates that temperatures did get high enough to melt metals. Even if Quizmasterchir's debunking argument were valid, that the steel buckled and fell apart before melting, it doesn't account for the evidence of actual molten metal at the site (as well as eyewitness testimony). The scientist (as well as other scientists) hypothesize that only something like thermite could be used to melt the metal. In the link above the scientist lays out a very compelling case using his own research and experiments as well as using government data. For instance, the dust samples from the WTC (including the government data) all have very high levels of iron which indicates melting metal. The EPA even noted that this was a unique characteristic of WTC dust that is not found in other office building dust.

Walter - I have no "debunking" arguments. The 9/11 truthers have put forward no positive hypothesis/-es to "debunk."

Among other problems with your suggestion that any buildings were "demolished" with explosives we have to consider that demolitions are INCREDIBLY LOUD, about 140 db loud, which is jet engine/record rock concert loud, and despite THE EYES AND EARS OF THE WORLD trained on the WTC site no one has EVER shown any video of that kind of explosive sound coming from the buildings.

We do however have thousands of eyewitnesses of planes being flown into the Pentagon and the towers.

You still somehow don't understand that metal does NOT need to melt (turn liquid) to lose most of its ability to remain a structure. Merely heating it does that, the hotter it gets the weaker it gets.

It's not my task here to prove a series of negatives in any event, it would be your task to show POSITIVE PROOF of VERY LOUD EXPLOSIONS happening. If they did it should be simplicity itself to produce audiovisual evidence.

"hypothesize that only something like thermite could be used to melt the metal" Really? Are we four years old? How do you think metal gets worked into girders to begin with, thermite? It's heated at a foundry. Y'know what would be evidence of thermite at the site? Thermite at the site. Found any of that yet?

You know what's just plain old stupid? Flying planes (or missiles, whatever floats your fantasy boat) into buildings, drawing the world's media to the site, having huge numbers of cameras pointed at the buildings, and THEN demolishing them while everyone is watching! Why go through the trouble of doing things in that order instead of just detonating the buildings and claiming that terrorists did that?

In fact, why would the buildings have to fall at all? Do you think that public opinion would not have been manipulated into war if the buildings were still standing and a slightly smaller number of people were killed? I don't at all "get" why blowing up buildings would be necessary for a false flag operation... it makes no sense. Why not then just plant a bomb in Times Square and claim it was Saddam? Why not have even ONE of the hijackers be FROM IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN?! If a fake plane why not make it FedEx instead of a passenger jet with all those "fake" people to account for?

Do you at all understand that as the fire burned and floors collapsed the floors below them suddenly had to hold two-three times (and then 6x and 12x and...) MORE WEIGHT than ever before, WHILE being heated? What one would expect is exactly what happened - rapid pancaking.

You have the renegade shadow government A) brilliant puppet masters and B) absolute blithering idiots with a Rube Goldberg plan SIMULTANEOUSLY.

This nonsense is pure distraction. There aren't enough REAL problems for us to have to chase imaginary ones?

Jeez Quizmastetchris, I'm surprised. I usually find your posts compelling and well-reasoned but this falls well short of your usual effort. Like I noted, I've only been studying the evidence more seriously the last few months but I know enough to know you are seriously wrong on most of your points. To wit:

1. "Among other problems with your suggestion that any buildings were "demolished" with explosives we have to consider that demolitions are INCREDIBLY LOUD . . . ." There are multiple eyewitness accounts of explosions. MULTIPLE as in dozens if not hundreds. And these are firemen and many other people that heard explosions on lower floors. There is also the story of the two guys that were trapped on the 8th floor of building 7 because of explosions and saved just in the nick of time (they had gone up to Guilliani's war room because they worked for the city but found the premises deserted when they got there and got trapped trying to get back down). There is also a RECORDED PHONE CALL made by someone in the building where one can hear a secondary explosion about 10 seconds after the plane hit. It's audible on the recording and I will try to find it (all this is easily available to someone who looks at the youtube links like "Loose Change" and many others--its not available in the mainstream news).

2. "You still somehow don't understand that metal does NOT need to melt (turn liquid) to lose most of its ability to remain a structure. Merely heating it does that, the hotter it gets the weaker it gets." I understand your argument just fine. Are you pretending not to understand my point? I am pointing you toward pretty solid evidence (both physical and multiple eyewitness evidence) that metal did in fact melt, rendering your argument moot. What does it matter how the buildings came down if there was indeed molten iron? In other words, even if you are correct, and say temperatures of 1000 degrees or so caused the metal to buckle before they melted and thus causing the demolition, something caused them to melt later at a much higher temperature. There is visual evidence of molten metal spewing from the buildings before they fell anyway. Plus, a normal fire had never done this type of damage to a steel structure before and the experts agree it impossible for normal building materials to burn hot enough to melt steel. And then on Sept. 11th the first 3 steel buildings in history fail at the same time and one of them wasn't even hit with jet fuel (and the experts seem to agree that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel).

3. "Why go through the trouble of doing things in that order instead of just detonating the buildings and claiming that terrorists did that?" Maybe because it's much more believable this way? Maybe because if we knew the buildings were intentionally demolished we would know that it would be near impossible for a terrorist group to have carried the attacks out. If you watch the video I posted, the scientist says his hypothesis is that is was a "deceptive demolition", in other words, he assumes the plotters wanted to demolish the buildings but wanted to hide the fact they were demolishing it and he thinks the evidence can only be explained under this theory.

Oh, and you just rebutted your own previous argument. You diminish the fact that the buildings fell in free fall and then under your own hypothesis you point out that steel bowing and giving way would result in "pancaking". Pancaking is different than free fall and we did not see pancaking, we saw free fall. If they would have pancaked they would have fallen more slowly and erratically.

That should be "Loose Change": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIAA0ZVSris&feature=fvst

1) No doubt that in a series of fires in multiple collapsing buildings a lot of loud noises would be heard.

But that's clearly not what we should have solid evidence of, is it? In order for THREE BUILDING COLLAPSES (actually FOUR since you claim I assume that the Pentagon was an inside job too, yes?) to have been caused by detonations, we should have a MASSIVE AMOUNT OF VIDEO AND AUDIO EVIDENCE OF A SERIES OF INCREDIBLY LOUD EXPLOSIONS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE EACH BUILDING FELL.

Show that to us now. You're on the net, that should be easy.

2) You should really give this up as you embarrass yourself. Ground Zero was subject to immense temperature and pressure that continued to smoulder after the building collapses. I should think that there would be some liquified metal somewhere in the debris.

This has NOTHING to do with the fact that steel loses a great deal of its integrity long before reaching an actual melting point.

You do know that different metals melt at different temps, and that a wide variety of metals would be found in 100+ story office buildings?



Crank the sound.



VERY obviously pancaking AT A VERY HIGH RATE OF SPEED, WITH FREEFALL OF DEBRIS IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH was exactly what was happening. You seem entirely ignorant of math and physics. "If they would have pancaked they would have fallen more slowly and erratically." Because why? Tell us all what your engineering background is on this question.

"a normal fire had never done this type of damage to a steel structure before"

1) THIS WAS NOT A NORMAL FIRE and 2) THE WTC TOWERS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED ANYTHING LIKE MOST SKYSCRAPERS. They are dependent on an intact outer shell to stay upright. What did two airplanes plow through?

"the experts agree it impossible for normal building materials to burn hot enough to melt steel"


The question is what psychological problem is it that all of you people have that you need this country to be invincible against angry brown people.

Very weak arguments Quizmasterchris. You're not even acknowledging my arguments honestly and you are going right to the invective ("what psychological problem . . . [do] you people have . . . ? "). The only sympathy I have for your ignorance is that I too once shared your knee-jerk response. Let me repeat that you are very ignorant of the basic arguments and engaging in underhanded argumentation and you certainly aren't warranted in being so cock sure of yourself. I want the truth and I have no agenda and I'm not one of "those people", whatever that is (unless you're accusing me of being a free thinker).

1) Watch the fucking video I posted dipshit. Watch "Loose Change" at about the 1:16:00 mark and you will see there are multiple examples of eyewitnesses that heard and saw explosions. It's all over the internet and you have to put your head in the sand to not know of these reports and other evidence. You sound really stupid when you claim there is NO EVIDENCE of explosions or sound. One eyewitness claimed she heard the pop, pop, pop like a string of firecrackers and many others heard explosions and many referenced the fact it seemed like a demolition. I can't find it now but I heard a phone recording from when one of the plane hits and you can hear the plane hit and then 10 seconds later an explosion and the people on the phone commenting about it. And here, just doing a cursory search on youtube is evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM The most compelling evidence is the eyewitness report I referenced above, the two guys that ended up in Guliani's war room, and tried to come down the stairs but were stopped by explosions. They were later rescued by firemen. And here's a video that presents some of the evidence of explosions and explains how the NIST investigation was incompetent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

Plus, but there is a lot of smoke coming from the bottom of the towers right before they come down (again, you have to watch the videos).

So are you lying or are you simply ignorant when you say there is "NO EVIDENCE." Or do you simply swallow government reports hook line and sinker? If you dig into the evidence with an open mind you might be surprised. I was.

2) Again, you couldn't be more wrong and it is you that should be embarrassed--that is if you had enough common sense to be embarrassed. Steel will not melt unless it reaches a very high temperature and even the government stooges say they have no explanation as to what fueled the fire to raise temperatures high enough to melt steel. You say the fire was not like a normal fire. Duh, dipshit. That's what I'm saying. Why wasn't it normal? Can you explain that? What material burned that caused temperatures to get that high? Office furniture? Human flesh (I think this may be one of the closest contenders but I don't think the temps get that high)? The government claims not to know and then they say they don't want to know. And you, Quizmasterchris, use this as evidence that "it was not a normal fire" and therefore (leap of logic coming here) shit burned really hot? So hot it burned steel? I guess everything really is different after 9/11--logic no longer applies. The fact the fire was so unusual is why the scientists I linked to in the Toronto hearings hypothesizes that thermite was used (plus the fact thermite was found on the site). Again, these were the only 3 steel buildings in human history to come down because of fire.

Again, watch the video from the scientist presenting at the Toronto hearings and the Loose Change movie before you comment because you have no idea of what the arguments even are.

Sorry my comment is so damn long. It's a lot of information and I'm really fascinated by it.

1) You don't hear a "pop pop pop" TO TAKE DOWN A 110 STORY BUILDING.




Crank the sound.



2) Is CounterPunch "government stooges"?

Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer, presents his three separate reports, undertaken for CounterPunch.

Part One is his report on the Physics of 9/11.


Part Two (published here for the first time) is his report on the Thermodynamics of 9/11.


Part Three, "Dark Fire", is his report on the collapse of the World Trade Center’s Building 7.


Read, learn.

Jesus Christ you are a maddening buffoon. Did you watch the video I cited? Are you intentionally playing games here just to jerk with me? I thought you were more intelligent than this and here you are acting in a way that I can only describe as intentionally obtuse.

WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEOS--YOU FUCKING RAGING IDIOT! Did you hear the "boom" in the video where the firefighter is on the phone? Is that video faked? Or is that still "ZERO, ZIP, NONE AUDIO/VIDEO?" There is also tons of video evidence showing the damage to the lobby and cars around the buildings before they fell down. Plus dead and injured people. It would have been impossible for the impact of the plane and the jet fuel to travel down to the lobby.

I will read your links as soon as you acknowledge this elemental piece of evidence; that there are dozens if not hundreds of people that heard and SAW explosions and there is multiple video and acoustic evidence of the same.

I will gladly compare Manuel Garcia, Jr.'s evidence to the evidence that the scientists at the Toronto Hearing presented. I want the truth. You, on the other hand, have reached your conclusion and are fixing the facts to fit your conclusion. You can't even admit to the most elemental evidence so you clearly are a DISHONEST HACK.

You really can't debate this until you hear the eyewitness testimony and other contemporaneous reports.

Again, here is "Loose Change"the final cut. Go to 1:16:00 to hear eyewitness testimony. Here the video where you can hear explosions.

And here is a video of the eyewitness account of Barry Jennings who I referred to before, who was apparently one of the last people in building 7. There is also video of him being interviewed right after he was rescued on 9/11.

Here is the videowhere you can hear explosions.

You posted a video which even the YouTube poster described as "explosions" (I heard ONE which might have been repeated from two different cameras) AND "rumbling."


We also have to explain how this would have been the first demolished skyscraper in history to crumble from the top down instead of starting at the bottom LIKE ALL OTHERS IN EVERY DEMOLITION VIDEO I'VE EVER SEEN.

What no demolition team is going to do - especially not to make a building fall "perfectly" as you morons claim - is set off one here and one there over a period of hours. That's not how it works. And it is positively STUPID to believe that someone trying to conspire to blow up 3 buildings would space

Again, watch an ACTUAL demolition:





The impact of the planes registered on seismology equipment as 0.9 or so earthquakes. The fall of the towers registered as a 2.1 earthquake. Fuel tanks and transformers blew during both fires.

In fact WTC 7 was taken down in part by basement oil fires when the huge oil tanks in its basement blew.

"Again, these were the only 3 steel buildings in human history to come down because of fire."

Read and learn:

"Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."


But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated."


"The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.

A challenge to conspiracy theorists:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.

Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.

It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed."

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely

[I live in Philadelphia - the fire mentioned here was back in about 1989, 3 firefighters were killed fighting this one and the department pretty much had to let parts burn. The building was determined to have had too much structural damage to be salvaged and it was torn down. There's a large parking garage on the spot today. - QMC]

Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."


[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.



You're a huge dishonest prick. I shouldn't even engage with you anymore because you are intellectually incapable of debating this issue honestly. But since you riled me up I will respond to the pure monkey shit you are flinging around (and for the maybe one other person reading this).

1. Again, you're a prick and the fact you are not arguing in good faith shows that your arguments are weak. You specifically ingore the evidence I cite and then carry on like your straw man argument is correct when it is obviously incorrect. The fact you can't admit that dozens of witnesses heard explosions and that there is numerous video evidence of this shows how dishonest you are. Are all these witnesses lying? Did you not hear the FUCKING BOOM in the videos I posted? Are these all faked? Don't tell me you are one of those kooky conspiracy theorists that thinks all these people were brainwashed.

2. I have watched a demolition before (see, I evaluate your evidence even though you don't give your opponent the same respect by honestly looking at his arguments--see point 1 above). In fact, if YOU FUCKING WATCHED THE VIDEOS I CITED (which you obviously haven't because, see point 1, you're a dishonest hack and intellectual lightweight), you would see that they show "normal" demolitions to demonstrate the similarities between a normal demolition and the 3 WTC building collapses. It's in the "Loose Change" movie. See here also (not that I endorse that particular video, just showing you that it is common for skeptics to compare the WTC collapses to normal demolitions). Also, in that Loose Change movie (near the end--so very roughly at around the 2:00 mark--I'm not going back to waste my time to give you the exact mark to show you something you refuse to see), you can see a German demolition expert who is shown the collapse of building 7 (without being told what it was) and he says it is a very professional job. When told that it collapsed on the same day as the towers he was incredulous and his look tells it all. In fact, even the NIST stooge in the video I show you FUCKING ADMITS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A DELIBERATE DEMOLITION. Here is video of the collapse of Building 7 that looks like a row of explosives going off just before collapse.

I cited one eyewitness that heard a string of explosives, "just like a string of firecrackers" (to paraphrase her), that is consistent with a demolition. Most other people seemed to describe singular explosions. Plus, as this video shows , NIST did not consider the option of nano-thermite which can be made so it is much quieter than other explosives. Plus, there was a huge amount of commotion around the WTC and the authorities were evacuating people and not allowing people to get too close so it was the perfect cover. There could have also been explosions timed when the planes hit to muffle the sound. Plus, the eyewitness evidence and other evidence suggests there were sporadic explosions rather than all the explosions at once. What could have happened is that the sporadic explosions weakened the building as well as the thermite melting the metal, then were taken down by a final series of explosions.

But again, you are being INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE OR WILLFULLY IGNORANT. I have shown you multiple eyewitness accounts and multiple examples of the sound of explosions, yet you persist with the nonsensical belief that there is NO EVIDENCE of explosions (which is coincidentally the exact same willful blindness exhibited by NIST--so you blindly trust the government sources, just like the guy in your Counterpunch article, DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY). Watch the fucking video you ignoramus. You obviously haven't considered the evidence because you keep repeating the same talking points even though I point you to the evidence.
2. You claim: "THERE SHOULD ALSO BE BLASTS OF DUST AND GLASS UP AND DOWN THE BUILDINGS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEY FELL." There was, you fucking obtuse disptick. I've previously shown you the evidence but you refuse to look at it and pretend as if I can't come up with it. This is the very definition of a dishonest hack (see point 1 above). Again, not that you will review the evidence, but look at the Loose Change movie (plus many other sources) and you will see a lot of smoke rising from the base of the towers a minute before they came crashing down. It's there. You just refuse to look. There are also what appear to be mini explosions or ejections from the buildings just as the towers were falling. I'm sure you're going to come up with some bullshit to explain it even if you did the intellectually honest thing and looked at the evidence instead of simply cutting and pasting from your debunking websited.

3. Yes, the towers were not built like other towers. In fact, they were stronger than most and built to withstand very significant impact. The Loose Change video describes this history pretty well. The very steel in the building was tested at very high temperatures to ensure they were safe and they passed the test. These were probably much stronger steel than the other buildings you cite. Again, even if the fire weakened the steel causing it to collapse (which I'm open to, I'm not saying it didn't contribute), the fact that there is molten steel indicates that temperatures got much higher than any normal fire. Did the steel in those previous incidents melt or simply buckle? Were they constructed in the same manner or was that construction weaker, even though it was steel? There are numerous engineers that have questioned the ability of jet fuel to collapse the WTC. We haven't gotten an honest assessment, and as I said, even NIST claims not to know how building 7 collapsed. You are even more confident that the government stooges that clearly are not considering all the evidence! You want to prove those crazy conspiracy theorists wrong so you even go further than NIST did!

And I love the fact you site the Philly high rise fire for your argument! It's probably the best example of how strong steel is even in a long-burning fire and that fire has been described as one of the worst in history. Plus, when this was "structurally weakened", or in the other two examples of steel buildings collapsing or not collapsing (I am not familiar with the 2 examples you cite, so I don't know), did they collapse as if they were demolished onto their own footprints, or did they partially collapse or collapse in a lopsided manner?

Anyway, you're not interested in honest debate. You're a fucking dishonest hack. You pick the facts that are good for you and ignore any contrary facts engage in heavy-handed rhetoric "9/11 was a day of firsts .. . " WTF does that mean? That's the catch all argument you use to explain shit you can't explain?

Look, I don't know what happened. Despite your claim to the contrary, it's not me that has to come up with the exact theory. It's the government stooges you rely on that came up with the 9/11 story. You are defending the official story and it's dishonest of you to flip around the burden of proof and claim skeptics have to prove an alternative theory. In fact, these skeptics have even met this unfair burden! If you looked at the presentation of the scientist I first cited above, at the Toronto Hearings, he shows that the best evidence is that thermite was used. FUCKING WATCH THAT VIDEO and then get back to me. Searching the google and then regurgitating what 911debunking.com says is not very extensive research. Citing an old Counterpunch article that blindly accepts the NIST report does not rebut the very damning criticism of that NIST report and indeed, the entire official investigation.

You're a hack Chris. An intellectual fraud.

Here's another example of NIST clearly lying about the evidence (parts of this video also appear in Loose Change). The NIST stooge claims there is no evidence of molten metal but clearly that is not the case. Apart from the evidence presented in that video, the scientists at the Toronto Hearings found evidence of high levels of iron in the dust and actually found droplets of iron indicating molten steel. There is no explanation for what can cause this (apart from thermite--which was also found on the site) so the hacks at NIST have to pretend that there is no evidence of molten steel.



9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible


"ONE BOOM" couldn't do shit to the buildings.


Or this one:


THAT's what a demolition sounds like - and from a distance!

That video also handles your STUPID ideas about WTC 7. Those windows which did get blown out were blasted out by the rush of compressed air from pancaking floors. ALL OF THE WINDOWS HAD SHADES WHICH WERE BLOWN OUTWARD BY THE SAME RUSH OF AIR. YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE BLOWN-OUT OBJECTS ARE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND FALL WITH IT, WHICH IS NOT HOW DUST BLASTS FROM EXPLOSIVES WOULD ACT. At least not if you don't get your physics from Wile E. Coyote.

All of your lunatic, uneducated, paranoid fantasies are dispatched here:


And here:


And here:


And your STUPID shit about thermite is handled here:


You'll note that the author took the time in some cases to track down the ORIGINAL quotes of eyewitnesses as they appeared in original sources, many of which are ALTERED by changing or removing words by the conspiracy LIARS (not merely morons but dishonest liars) that you're putting yourself out on a limb for.

I notice that you've made no attempt whatsoever to address why this complex conspiracy that was no doubt intended to goad the US public into supporting Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't bother to make ONE OF THE GODDAMN HIJACKERS YOU CLAIM ARE ALL FRAUDS AN IRAQI OR AFGHANI. Not ONE of them! That's quite an interesting conspiracy you put together there. They can make magical silent explosives that bring down massive buildings undetected while the world watches... yet they can't connect EVEN ONE of 19 make-pretend hijackers to the countries they are trying to frame! "Brilliant!"

And I'm the intellectual fraud here..?

Here's a great example of how the 9/11 'truthers' are actually knowing LIARS:

"In Steven Jones' [superstar truther!] PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know."


You are a piece of work. A real piece of work. I can't believe I ran into such a hack on this site.

Again, there is evidence of more than ONE BOOM you dishonest lying hack. I DIDN'T ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY ONE BOOM AND ALL THE EVIDENCE I CITE REFERS TO MULTIPLE BOOMS. So you're lying. You are intentionally misrepresenting my arguments--like a complete fraud would do. I give you the respect you clearly do not deserve you piece of shit and consider your arguments--you lie about my arguments. How many times do I have to tell you to watch the fucking videos? You clearly are so incompetent you can't even watch a video and report honestly about what it depicts. There are multiple booms heard in the videos I cited. There is multiple eyewitness testimony about multiple explosions. If you watch the videos you would know this. But you probably watched them and realized they contradict your argument so you are pretending they don't exist and misrepresenting them! So again, are they lying? Are your ears deceiving you? Did you watch the video where the reporter is interviewing the woman with a baby and they analyze the sound and determine explosions are heard right before the buildings came down?

And then you go and cite the 140 decibel level as if that is the scientific gold standard--yet that is the very criterion being criticized in the video I cite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Deal with the arguments, not with your dishonest straw man of the arguments (again, your dishonest argumentation style weakens your argument). You assume NIST is correct that if the demolition theory is correct explosions would be 140 DB, but this ASSUMES (as the video explains in detail) that normal loud explosives were used without any measures to soften the sound. Thermite would be much quieter as would certain measures that would be taken in an expert demolition. Setting the limit for "explosions" at 140 DB--and when the sound recordings are blocks away from the site--is not a valid criterion. Plus, it ignores the extensive eyewitness testimony (if you watch Loose Change at 1:16 for a couple of minutes prepare to be dazzled by the sheer number of eyewitnesses--but you are a COMPLETE FRAUD CHRIS so I don't expect you to deal with this in a serious manner). Again, did you even watch the video? I simply can't believe you can be this big of a moron. I can't believe I've run into such a dishonest person here.

Also, your debunking videos are crap. It says the windows were blown out, but if you look just at the building 7 collapse I link to above, you will see that the entire wall was blown out, not just the windows. It was as if an entire column was blown out. Look closely. You can't even honestly describe a video you are looking at so I don't expect you to respond honestly, and I don't even know why I'm trying to argue with someone as dishonest as you . . . . but if you were to look you would see it's not just windows blowing out. I think that video I linked to surfaced in 2008.

As far as the link you claim debunks the thermite theory--you're a complete fool so no wonder you think this destroys the argument. In fact it's and extremely weak rebuttal. First, I will deal with the claim you repeat--that the scientist Steven Jones left out or hid critical details. If you weren't such a dolt you would realize that the levels of plastic (or asbestos for that matter), while important to the people that were breathing the toxic air, is not important to the theory of thermite. Of course there were high levels of plastic in an office building. The scientists were looking for high levels of iron which indicated molten steel that was ejected like one would find in a volcanic eruption. They found this. They also found droplets of lead which indicates molten steel was strewn about violently. The presence of large amounts of plastic does not disprove or prove the molten steel theory. If you were intellectually honest enough to consider the evidence I am presenting you would have watched the scientific presentations at the Toronto Hearings and you would have seen them present this in much greater detail than your silly debunking link goes into.

Second, the argument at debunking911 re thermite is bullshit because there has indeed been evidence of molten steel as I showed in my previous links. My previous link is better evidence than the evidence presented at your debunking link (it goes into more detail and shows more). There is visual evidence of huge fused balls of molten steel and concrete. Again, there is also a lot of eyewitness testimony re the molten steel. Your debunking911 cite claims the physical evidence all occurred from workers cutting steel. That's weak. While that surely may explain some anomalies in the steel there is lots more evidence of melted steel that doesn't look like cuts and your site only presents a few examples to "debunk" and ignores all the rest of the evidence (I see where you get your dishonest debating skills from). Plus, it's kind of hard to evaluate the evidence when it's all been shipped overseas, no? But we do have pretty clear proof of molten steel and thermite being present and if you are going to debunk Mr. Jones or the other scientists you will need to treat their arguments seriously instead of serially misrepresenting them. When someone engages in serial misrepresentations others can't help but to question their motives. You are a serial liar and you are simply throwing shit against the wall rather than searching for the truth.

I haven't considered your three middle links followed by "lunatic, uneducated, paranoid fantasies . . . " but if it's like the other crap at debunking911 then it's worthless.

You're a fraud. And intellectual lightweight who is incapable of reasoned inquiry.

So, according to Chris and debunking911.com, this video, that appears to show a classic demolition of a building--showing what looks like a whole column getting blown out just before a building collapses (a vertical column on the right side of the building about a 1/4 of the way from the corner), is really air being pushed out the windows. Of course one can see that it's the entire side of the building that is ejected in that section and not just the windows. Furthermore, why would air be pushed out the same window on every floor? Wouldn't the ejections caused by air be more random and occur at different windows on different floors? It doesn't make sense. This is why even the NIST stooges say it "looks" like a controlled demolition, but of course they twist the facts and ignore all the other inconvenient facts.

Blah blah blah bag of nothing blah blah blah.

Liars and idiots and people with mental disorders chasing phantoms, that's what the 'truthers' are.

It's funny that in your very first comment on this post you complain about being censored at another website while someone that called you "mentally unstable" was not censored. And let me remind you that YOU were the first person here to accuse another (me) of being mentally unstable. So in addition to being impervious to reason you are also deeply unaware of your own hypocrisy.

So blah blah blah is right. You won't meet the arguments head on and instead you pull the "conspiracy theorists are all crazy" card while you engage in underhanded debate.

And I apologize for my part of the heated rhetoric. I guess it just triggers me when I feel like people are not acknowledging my valid arguments and are engaging in obfuscation and misdirection. I get this enough with the progressives, politicians, and the media and was not expecting it in this instance.

It's also especially maddening in the face of the propaganda put out by our government and media and their attempts to control the message. For instance, this soccer player is being "investigated" for daring to question the official version of 9/11: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14914280.stm

It also appears that Twitter took the tweet down, if I'm reading other sources correctly!!

Also, I watched the opening football games this weekend (I had to turn the channel for the first 10 minutes consisting of 9/11 celebration because I couldn't stomach it) and the announcers did a complete hit job on Mendenhal who made the mistake of questioning the Osama Bin Laden assassination via twitter. It was quite shocking to see the lengths they went to discredit him. It was in the first few minutes of the first games on Sunday (of the new season), on 9/11, after all the pomp and circumstances of the celebration, then the announcers just raked Mendenhal over the coals and seemed to be suggesting that he would be a target of violence!

"I feel like people are not acknowledging my valid arguments"

You don't HAVE any valid arguments, you're just passing along rumor mill insanity from the underbelly of the internet. And you're flipping out when presented with science, calling anyone who doesn't buy into the science-free insanity a fraud and/or a shill for your (apparently completely STUPID) shadow government.

That's the kind of behavior of people who push shopping carts down the street while muttering about Jews and the Trilateral Commission and the chip in their brain stem.

It's been a decade of this crap and I'm long past the point of considering A) what actually happened and B) a series of increasingly paranoid and stupid fantasies to be "equally valid."

At first I was like this
: \

And then I was like this
: \

You're a real hoot Chris. You're the science guy, eh? Yeah, all the sciece guys I know completely misrepresent the data and lie about their opponents argument and then storm off while characterizing your opponent as "crazy." You can't even look at a video and honestly report what is in it. You have made dishonest comment after dishonest comment on this very thread.

You claim there is NO EVIDENCE of explosions yet when I show you voluminous evidence of such you totally ignore it. Ha. That's hilrious that you imagine yourself to be the one using a rational, scientific approach. You are a complete fraud. A complete dipshit and you bring zero value to this conversation.

You're a dishonest dipshit.

Care to engage on the merits dipshit? Or is all you have is ad hominem attacks where you claim your opponent is pushing a shopping cart muttering about the Jews? Nice straw man there btw, just like your previous straw man that I want to protect America from the "brown" guys. You are trying to make me into this person I'm not. I was not seeking out conspiracy theories. I was curious about the facts and as I dug in deeper the facts became even more interesting. That is a sure sign of a dishonest hack. Your whole argumentation style on this thread is proof positive that you are a huge lying sack of shit and can't be trusted.

You've been caught lying repeatedly. You repeat lie after lie forcing me to expend all this energy just to rebut your lies and then when I sufficiently do so you move on to the next lie. When you run out of plausible lies you play the "crazy" card (which you hypocritically whine was used against you by someone else at another site).

Again, do you acknowledge the multitude of eyewitness testimony about explosions? Are these people crazy? You spent a lot of energy DEMANDING I prove this and when I FUCKING PROVE IT TO YOU IN SPADES, you ignore the issue completely and move on to new issues and then resort to ad hominem nonsense.

What "data" has been "misrepresented" by me at any time?

There are at least a half-dozen instances on debunking911.com of quotes shown to have CHANGED by ironically-named 'truthers' when one follows up on the original source of the quote. It's the 'truthers' who are proven liars.

"when I show you voluminous evidence of such"





If you can't do that you're full of shit.


Cloud - I certainly hope that the emoticons were not an indication that it's still a coin toss for you as to whether this insanity is believable.

According to Chris:

Science free insanity = a presentation by chemist Kevin Ryan discussing detailed governmental data as well as his own research (the sound is kind of bad--especially in the first few minutes of his presentation but it gets better and you can even fast forward a minute or so).

The scientific TRUTH = anything posted by debunking911.com or the official government report.

I encourage anyone to look at these two sources regarding the scientific issues of molten steel and the presence of thermite and see which source is more "scientific."

"previous straw man that I want to protect America from the "brown" guys"

No, actually what I typed was that all you truthers have some mental disorder which precludes you from being able to believe that brown people are capable of defeating the (fuck-ups in the) US military WITH A VERY SIMPLE PLAN TO FLY PLANES INTO THREE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST BUILDINGS, ALL OF THEM ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO HIT.

You also - and this is rich - you also think that the government blew up WTC 1 & WTC 2 & staged fake plane attacks to cover for it.


What in HELL is that all about?! DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?!

Other people have, or also have, a mental disorder in which it becomes necessary to boost the ego by claimig to have awareness of a shadow world which the sheeple don't see. In some people this manifests as paranormal fantasies of ghosts and spirits, in some political conspiracies.

Yes, Walter, I'm a "lying sack of shit who can't be trusted." I work for Dick Cheney. Maybe I am Dick Cheney. Better put the tinfoil back on your head because I'm going to beam hate rays

"Are these people crazy?"

Some are crazy and some are stupid. I don't care who's which, wrong is wrong.

So the eyewitness testimony is totally irrelevant? They are mistaken? What did they hear? Are these witnesses lying? What are the multiple sounds we can hear? I posted video where there is the sound of multiple explosions just before the towers fell. Is this simply not load enough for you? What was it? Firecrackers that just happened to go off right before the collapse? You discount it because it's not 140 decibel level? How do you know what the decibel level is? Why should we assume a sound level using more primitive and loud explosives and not taking measures to muffle the sound? You do know that people heard explosions below ground and thus those explosions probably would not be picked up by sound recordings on the street as well and thus may not have sounded like 140 DB?

So all that evidence gets ignored by you . . . why again?

Here's Dean H. Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, talking about why intelligent design is correct and evolution is wrong:


There you have it then! Creationism is correct - evolution doesn't happen! One professor said it, it must be true.

You've done it, you've convinced me. You win, I was wrong.

The government blew up the WTC towers and the Pentagon. A chemistry professor said it in Toronto. Also I don't believe in evolution any longer.

I'm sorry I called you all those nasty names. I'm the dunce here, 9/11 was an inside job. And evolution is a lie. Life is all so much clearer now; I'm glad we had this chat.

Doubling down on your dishonesty I see. You vile piece of ignorant shit.

1. You again fail to acknowledge my argument about the eyewitnesses and instead resort to ad hominem nonsense. You're a dishonest hack that is incapable of arguing in good faith.

2. Yes, the mere fact that scientists like Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Odg8nDgMQQ make the argument does not make it so. But they are presenting scientific evidence whereas your side has basically thrown your hands up in the air and admitted you don't know what happened. Your side first tried to deny the obvious facts (like whether molten steel was present) but in the end they have no explanation for the higher temperatures or the presence of thermite on the site.

In any event, I'm prepared to consider countervailing scientific data. If you have any that is on point and not one of your silly ad hominem attacks or a link to debunking911 I'm all eyes (unlike you who obfuscate and hide inconvenient facts--YOU FUCKING HACK). I have considered the NIST data but their conclusions are seriously flawed for the reasons Kevin Ryan and others point out. For instance, if you can explain why the standard for a "demolition" theory should be 140 DB I'm all ears. Why shouldn't they assume a nano-thermite theory which would require a much lower DB?

Jeez this is like being back in the bosom of my dysfunctional family when I was growing up, listening to the dinner time repartee


I agree with Quizmasterchris here. The planes hit the buildings. They burned and then fell down. NO HIDDEN EXPLOSIVES NECESSARY, OR POSSIBLE EITHER.

Some people are crazy. Some are stupid. Some are evil. Some are misinformed. These are not mutually exclusive.

And if we have messed up in the past, we can recognize this and try to do better from now on.

May the Creative Forces of the Universe stand beside us (metaphorically speaking), and guide us, through the Night with the Light from Above - and have mercy on our souls, if any.

My compliments to the blog host, and to the participants, on a spirited exchange of deeply held views.


I fail to see how it's not possible. Maybe you mean it wasn't probable, in which case, maybe you're right. But of course it was possible. From what I've read it is extremely unusual for steel buildings to fall in this way--and if you think about it, if steel is "buckling" from high heat (before it melts), wouldn't a building fall in an asymmetric fashion, listing heavily to one side or another?

But apart from the structural engineering analysis . . . I don't see how one can discount the voluminious eyewitness testimony of people who saw, heard, and felt explosions, especially on the lower floors, which absolutely could not have been a result of the planes hitting. Again, I would really appreciate it if people viewed 3 minutes or so of the eyewitness testimony found here, starting at the 1:16:15 mark, before they comment. What explains all this testimony? What explains the dead bodies in the underground structures and lobby areas before the buildings fell?

Look, a "scientific" approach to this would consider all the evidence. One has to follow the evidence. I'm not saying I know for sure how it happened. I simply find Dr. Kevin Ryan's hypothesis of a "deceptive demolition" to be the most compelling because it comports with what I consider the most critical facts (the presence of molten steel and thermite on the site, the eyewitness testimony, and the physics analysis). I wish I didn't find this hypothesis the most compelling--but I'm not going to self-sensor myself because the majority instantly jumps on this thesis as "crazy."

For almost 10 years I shared the same knee-jerk resistance to this hypothesis because of the horrible implications. But this hypothesis is not crazy (if one looks at the basic facts) and if one looks to who had the motive, means, and opportunity, it does not seem as far-fetched as it once did.

In fact, security for the WTC towers had recently been taken over by a new group (with one of the Bush brothers on the Board) and on the weekend before 9/11 power was shut down in an "unprecedented" manner, which may have created an opening for people to place explosives in the buildings. Furthermore, the FBI investigated but has failed to release it's full findings about the odd behavior of an Isreali moving company. Plus, we now know, according to Richard Clarke, that at least 50 people in the C.I.A. knew that some of the hijackers were in the country, and may have tried to recruit them to become double agents (or something--who knows what to trust here), but they kept it hidden from the F.B.I. So we have direct links between the C.I.A. and the hijackers. There are also reports of Saudia Arabia secret services being involved with the alleged hijackers. These are explosive reports that make it more probable that the attacks were false flag operations. Plus, as far as motive is concerned, who benefited the most from the attacks?

I don't know what the truth is. But these questions are legitimate and rational.

Also, the official investigations were underfunded and deeply flawed. Both the 9/11 Commission and the NISTA and FEMA reports failed to address absolutely critical facts (which Chris and I are fighting about above). How in the world could these investigative bodies claim there was no eyewitness testimony re explosives? Again, I encourage any open-minded person to watch the links I provided on this issue above and claim that a "scientist" or "investigator" would not even address this evidence.

As shown on Washington's Blog, even the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission and other "serious" politicians have asked for further investigation.

I too want to thank the blog host for putting up with a vituperous debate.

The blog host is out of town or he'd have stopped the vituperation a long time ago. So without having read the entire thread in my limited Internet time, let me say this to everyone right now in no uncertain terms:


Chris, this means you in particular. I left a few days ago having seen you talk about being chased off of CommonDreams for attacking "truthers" and I expected you might do the same thing here, and sure enough. If you want to do that, do it somewhere else, not on my blog. It's reasonable for people to ask these questions, whether or not you agree with their conclusions.

And Walter, I've read enough now to see that although Chris threw the first stone(s), you've been responding in kind. I understand your frustration all too well from direct experience, but c'mon--you know that doesn't fly here.

Cloud: ...largely thanks to our host, the odds that one can in good faith voice a minority opinion here and get a thoughtful answer or discussion are considerably higher than elsewhere.

Thanks very much for that--it's good to know someone appreciates it. I'm sorry it hasn't panned out, and sorrier still that I can't be gone for two days without the comments section descending into full hooting and poo-flinging mode. Hopefully if people can pull it back, you'll get your thoughtful discussion yet.

John - Sorry this had to happen on your blog, it won't again. Message about tone heard, understood.

I don't at all think it's "reasonable" for people to ask these questions [and they aren't questions in fact, as we see in this thread they have specific answers already and anyone who doesn't agree is a dupe, fraud and/or part of The Conspiracy], because the conclusions are entirely unreasonable. I don't see how the 'left' got to the point where sanity and insanity are supposed to be equally valid and duke it out in the 'marketplace of ideas.' If that's where we're at all is lost.

As I mentioned above, I too am sorry for personalizing this debate and being disrespectful. I get upset when confronted with obfuscation and my instinct is to fight back.


You have yet to explain or even acknowledge the multiple eyewitness accounts of explosions (except for your one liner about some of them probably being "crazy"). Did you watch the part of "Loose Change" I asked you to watch? How do you know this evidence is "crazy" if you don't even look at it? What do you make of the policeman who is on the street covered in dust and the reporter asks him, "Was it a collapse or an explosion", and he answers, "an explosion." What do you make of the people that say, "we got down to the lobby and it looked like a bomb had gone off?" What do you make of the reporter (!) who was on the street and reported multiple explosions (after she said the authorities were cordoning the area off and getting people to leave)? What do you make of the multiple other people who report hearing and feeling an explosion and then a collapse? What about the journalist who reported being thrown against the wall because of an explosion? What about the people who saw and heard explosions below ground and injured/dead people? What do you make of the clip where the reporter is about 2 blocks away from the building and then she and the woman she is interviewing have a startle reflex (because they heard something) and when the audio is enhanced there is a series of noises just before the building collapse (just as in a demolition--as you point out)? Why should that noise have been ignored by the investigators? How did they know it wasn't 140 decibels and, again, why is that a valid standard? What do you make of the other clip where the firemen (or policemen--it's hard to tell what they are) are on the phone calling their mothers when there is a very loud explosion heard? Do you know what the decibel level of that explosion is? What about the multiple other clips where we hear explosions (are these really all the same explosion?). Why should the investigators ignore all this evidence?

It does not seem to me that you are arguing in good faith. If anyone is acting like they have settled on their conclusions and are ignoring any contrary evidence it is you. You started off complaining that someone at another site called you mentally unstable, but here you are doing the exact same thing. You haven't demonstrated that the above questions are "insane." Instead, after giving perfunctory links to your favorite debunking website, you've simply attacked me personally and tried to shut down all debate on the subject.

Plus, you have consistently unfairly characterized my positions. Just in your last comment you claim I already have the answers--but I specifically said I don't know exactly what happened (it's kind of hard to get the evidence when the investigation has been intentionally bungled). I simply postulated a possible scenario (of people having access to the buildings the weekend before and I showed very compelling links to the C.I.A., the Saudis, and the Israeli governments). I didn't come up with this evidence by the way. If you looked at the links in my last comment I link directly to Richard Clarke who is making some of these powerful allegations as well as the reporting of Democracy Now and Counterpunch (which, ironically, you held up as a legitimate source up thread when it published a structural engineer's report that followed NIST's conclusions). So to emphasize that point, you can cite an article from Counterpunch and I'm supposed to take it as the truth that shuts down all debate, but when I cite reporting from Counterpunch it's "insane."

I don't know the full truth. I just think Dr. Ryan's hypothesis of a "deceptive demolition" is more probable than the official version, based on the evidence as I currently understand it. Any real investigator or scientist would examine this evidence rather than willfully ignore it. It's ironic that you claim to be using a scientific approach when you want all discussion shut down and any inconvenient facts ignored.

Also seen in Loose Change, is a portion of this interview with Firefighter John Shroeder (assigned to station 10, the station specifically assigned to the WTC), who says:

"We're standing there in the lobby....all of a sudden we hear (explosion noise) and the elevators exploded like something out of a Bruce Willis Die Hard movie . . . ."

"People just come running out of the elevators on fire. . . . I was like what is going on here, something's up here - I mean the plane's up there now there's fire down here?"

"We said something's wrong here - I mean the plane hit up on the 80th floor - 5 minutes later and the elevators are suddenly exploding on the first level - why?"

"There was definitely a distinct time delay between the planes hitting and the elevators exploding," [Shroeder then describes ascending the building then going back down to the lobby--Walter]

"We got down to the lobby and everything was blown out, exploded, and we were the only ones in the lobby....everything was exploded, everything was gone, we're like what is going on here?"

"It looked like a bomb went off in the lobby,"

"We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. . . . People were making their way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn't believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn't make sense."

"Explosions, fires everywhere, is something happening that we don't know about here? I mean a plane just hit - it wasn't an F-14 coming in and shooting rockets at us."

"Just in your last comment you claim I already have the answers--but I specifically said I don't know exactly what happened"

Well that's not at all true, is it? Because like all other 'truthers' you "know" that anyone who understands that massive fires and severe structural damage can knock down buildings - is this up for debate, seriously? is that where we're at as a society? - is a fraud, a shill and/or part of The Conspiracy.

Of course people heard "explosion noises" - some things were exploding, other things were crumbling violently or being blown out. Transformers blow in fires, oil tanks below WTC 7 caught fire. Super-heated air was being forced out of path of least resistance areas, down or up shafts and blowing out windows.

None of this is ***REMOTELY*** like a series of massively loud bangs as one sees in all other demolitions ***IMMEDIATELY BEFORE*** all three buildings fell. You don't bring down a building by popping a charge here or there over a period of HOURS. I don't understand how or why anyone thinks that would work, it makes no sense.

You're also claiming that the small explosions which were heard randomly caused the buildings to collapse... while simultaneously suggesting that the explosions that did cause the buildings to collapse would have been quiet, presumably because of super-secret silent squibs available only to The Conspiracy. Which is it?

You have the "small" problem of explaining why controlled demolitions have skyscrapers falling from the bottom first, but the towers obviously fell from the top-down as anyone with one functioning eye can see.

Even if claim that charges caused that you have to tacitly admit that pancaking occured and was the aim of those charges. So which is it, is pankcaking floors impossible or were charges placed to cause floors to pancake?

You have the "small" problem of explaining why blowing up WTC 1 & 2 was "covered" with
phony plane crashes ... yet the supposed big smoking gun that this was false flag operation is the "mysterious" collapse of WTC 7, which in addition to being wholly unnecessary from the false flag standpoint (in fact it would make the whole thing suspicious!) had no form of "fake plane" nor any other alternative cause arranged for it by The Conspiracy.

Is the assumption that knocking down WTC 1 & WTC 2 & putting a hole in the Pentagon would presumably not be enough to get Americans up for more war in the Middle East... but knock down WTC 7 and America would demand blood!

Because as we all know the most famous and beloved building in America was WTC 7, you mess with that and you mess with all of us! Yes, absolutely crucial to knock down WTC 7 - the building no one claims a plane hit.

Is this making any form of sense to anyone?

One might note that firemen's lives were saved at WTC 7 because they suspected a collapse was imminent and pulled out of the building. But that must mean that the firemen were part of The Conspiracy I suppose. In fact they probably detonated the charges, or..? I mean, as long as we're speculating wildly, why not blame rogue firemen? (Incidentally my father in law is a retired Philadelphia fireman who answered the '91 - I misremembered it as '89 - fire which damaged a concrete-reinforced steel-frame office building so severely in Center City that it was decided to pull men out before the building collapsed and to tear it down before it fel down. WTC buildings were NOT concrete reinforced.)

One might mention that there are very few people in the world who do demolitions on buildings approaching this size - just a couple of companies in the country really, not many more in the world - and you are casually accusing a group of those people of mass murder. Somehow in addition to this everyone involved and their families have had no suspicions of anything being amiss for a decade, and not a detail has been leaked in a decade of the curious fact that these people were sneaking around the WTC in NYC when they don't even claim to have been in the city! Tens of thousands of people involved in the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time and everyone has kept it a total secret! Astounding!

Thanks for taking it down a notch, y'all. I'm always struck by how polarized this debate has become, to the point where if it even comes up you're all but guaranteed an explosion (as if the left needed one more thing to divide it).

Which is what I wrote before I saw that Chris had loaded up another handful of poop and let it fly. So I'll say thanks again to Walter, who actually followed through on his apology.

As for Chris: holy hell, you have got to be kidding me. Do you really have so little self control that you can't help but shower contempt and sarcasm on people you disagree with (while ignoring half of what they say and twisting the rest into grotesque straw men)--mere minutes after you told me you heard and understood what I was saying?

Since I didn't say it outright last time, let me be perfectly clear: you won't get another warning.

And I'd like to say I'd sorely miss Chris's typical contributions to comments on this site - I generally find them both well-informed and informative!


In my opinion, you are still engaging in unfair debate by throwing in all these allegations of being "crazy". Can't you just talk about the facts without these hyperbolic claims? Your position that these dozens and hundreds of witnesses shouldn't even be considered (!!!!), which is the position the "official" investigators took, is incredibly unscientific. The investigators didn't even investigate these sounds and the eyewitness testimony to determine if they really were fuel tanks or super-heated air (and from what I've seen that is extremely unlikely--especially super-heated air traveling down to the lobby and underground areas).

Also, on a personal note, it's incredibly frustrating to have to waste time fighting with you in every exchange to even have the arguments acknowledged and dealt with in an honest manner (your response is, in essence, "you're crazy, no one should listen to you, STFU, end of story). Even though I find you to be frustrating and intentionally obtuse, I don't want to be the one that provokes you into getting banned (I don't like people getting banned--but I really wish you would start debating in good faith). I don't know why you are so resistant to an honest debate--I thought you were more open minded from previous comments. If you are so confident you have THE TRUTH on your side, why are you fighting so hard to shout down an airing of these arguments? Our society is so fragile that we have to shout down discussion like this? That's what you're saying. Surely you are aware of Project Northwoods and the covert history of this country the last 60 years or so, in which case you should welcome this kind of analysis and skepticism.

I believe you misrepresented my argument in the following manner:

1) Where do I say that the planes hitting the towers were faked? It appears to me that planes hit the towers (I am not one of the few skeptics that claim the images were faked--and why do you randomly pick other skeptic's theories and impute them to me? Why do you lump anyone that questions the official version, in any way, into one group of crazy "truthers"?). If I were to speculate, based on the very credible evidence of thermite (which you have completely ignored), I would guess that the planes were packed with thermite. It is possible (but not necessarily probable), that the planes that hit all 4 locations were not the planes that were hijacked but were military planes. Under this theory (again, I'm not claiming 100% certainty), the planes with passengers would have been shot down (or something) and military planes packed with explosives and flown remotely would have hit the targets. Partial evidence for this is that the impacts in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon did not look like plane crashes. Again, 9/11 must have changed everything, because there is no other plane crash in human history that left such few remains behind.

2) You keep saying there is "NO EVIDENCE" rather than saying you think the evidence is weak or explaining away the evidence. It took you dozens of comments, after you DEMANDED, DEMANDED DAMMIT, that I prove evidence of explosions, to even consider the evidence I presented to you in response to your challenge. And even in your latest comment you state there is no evidence of a series of explosions before the collapse (you dismiss without much analysis the theory that buildings could be detonated by explosions spaced out time, plus the thermite cutting thought the metal for over an hour or so). For instance, I pointed out to you that here is indeed audible evidence of a firecracker like succession of booms right before the collapse of the building. In the video I link to one can see that the reporter hears these sounds and then the buildings fall. Again, I fail to see how you KNOW, without any scientific study or analysis, why this evidence is bunk. I'm open to the idea that it was some diesel tank exploding, or something, but unless there is an investigation of this massive cumulative evidence of explosions, why should I accept what what is nothing but speculation on your part?

3) You say: "One might mention that there are very few people in the world who do demolitions on buildings approaching this size - just a couple of companies in the country really, not many more in the world - and you are casually accusing a group of those people of mass murder." If you actually considered the evidence I presented you would know that I referred you previously to one or these experts, a German demolition expert, Daniel Jowenko, that appears in Loose Change at 1:54:10. You should watch his reaction to viewing the demolition. I understand that he is now dead, like the witness I linked to above, Barry Jennings, who was with the NY City Corporation Counsel in Guiliani's War Room in building 7. Here's his contemporaneous description of the explosions, btw (and the guy that rescued him also makes a reference the explosions looking like a Bruce Willis Die Hard film).

4) I don't know if this is a misrepresentation, but a controlled demolition theory does not need to include the firefighters in part of a conspiracy. If anything, the commotion of the planes and the fires was a good cover for further bombs. Also, the planners could have been nearby and they could have planted the idea that the buildings were coming down. In fact, if you watch Loose Change, you will see that the media was literally announcing the collapse of building 7 before it came down. Also, say the planners were more worried about bringing building 7 down that the two tower because the subterranean structures under the towers providing more cover and muffling effects whereas blowing building 7 would be louder. So by telling people it was going to come down people would obviously move away from the building and be less likely to film or hear the explosions. As I noted, one reporter was a few blocks away after getting pushed back by authorities and her mic did pick up sounds similar to demolition explosives right before the collapse.

Also, I don't know the exact reason for bringing building 7 down--but if you looked to see who occupied that building you may see some clues.

I do agree with you that these theories are sensational. As I noted, I too first had a similar knee-jerk response (although being more open minded I never tried to shout skeptics down--I just kind of refused to even consider any of the evidence and never read stories or clicked on links, etc.)

John et al -

No worries, I don't need another warning. I'm a grown man, I don't need any warnings. I don't come on the internet in my free time to get warned about things.

I'll leave your blog (and the internet in general it seems) to the paranoiacs. I've been tired for a decade of defending sanity on this issue, and I've been rather tired since my early teen years in the early '80s of defending sanity in general. Add in defending science or even the notion of cause-and-effect and it's a bit much of a load for one person to haul. I am clearly outnumbered and there's no point attempting argue facts against any sane person's belief system, let alone the touched.

It's been real, good luck with the blog, and good luck figuring out who knocked down WTC 7 and why they would engage in this unnecessary stupidity, as this is clearly the lynchpin of the right's master conspiracy plan for the world, and what everyone really needs to focus upon. No need to worry about "blowback" or what have you, as there isn't any because the brown people aren't actually retaliating... the all-powerful geniuses such as Dick Cheney and Turd Blossom just want you believe that's happening. It's all really just renegade Navy SEAL teams and people who build very realistic looking 767 models at 1:1 scale. Just remember that the one route you all need to serially ignore is that structural damage and major fires can bring down buildings. Once you swallow that everything else becomes doubleplusgood.

Nope, not "you all"; my own position is basically the same as yours, mistah charley said he agrees as well, and I don't doubt there are others. I just don't get why you feel the need to insult and browbeat people who have questions about anything around 9/11. That's your choice, but you're not going to get a positive response from many people when you're sarcastically dismissing them as uneducated lunatic idiots (etc). Keep in mind that although you've apparently been arguing this vehemently for a decade, some people might just now be looking into it in detail and so they might be hearing the points you're presenting for the first time. And whether or not that's the case, why berate them? I wouldn't treat fundamentalist Christians with that level of contempt, and their beliefs are infinitely less rational or defensible.

As for leaving for good, that's also your call, but like others I'd rather not see you go. But I also don't want flamewars erupting in the comments, and I want people to feel like they can voice even unpopular opinions without getting attacked.

Bringing "sanity" and "science" to the conversation apparently means:

1. Ignoring the scientific findings of thermite.
2. Ignoring evidence of molten steel.
3. Ignoring the vast eyewitness testimony re explosions during the WTC attack.
4. Failing to investigate the WTC site for explosive residue and then shipping the WTC remains overseas so they can't be examined.
5. Explaining away the highly unusual occurrences of 3 steel-framed high rises collapsing.
6. Ignoring the reports from official sources (!) that at least 50 CIA agents allowed the hijackers to enter the country, were paid by the Saudi secret services, and were followed by the Israeli secret services (who were cheering the first plane hitting--before most people knew it was an attack).
7. Making excuses for official investigations that ignores all the above data and denigrating anyone that asks questions about the above.

As far as Chris rebutting the arguments or providing science and reason to this discussion. . . he hasn't done anything of the sort. The most he added to this conversation was the Counterpunch link which basically accepted the NIST conclusions as gospel (the article starts off with a long section about why people make up conspiracy theories--so one can see why Chris was drawn to this piece). Of course this was written over half a decade ago and we now know there are serious flaws in the NIST report, which are noted above, and not even remotely addressed by the Counterpunch piece, or Chris, or NIST for that matter.

There is a reason the apologists for the official government version have to resort to shouting down skeptics as "insane" and are avoiding a fair hearing of these issues at all costs.

I'm back from my time off, and I'd like to apologize to Chris and everyone else on the thread for the heavy-handedness of my reaction in my 11:45 AM comment up there. I'd already wasted an hour on this, and just when I thought it was over I had to spend yet more time on it after Chris tossed another gallon of gasoline on the fire, and the frustration I felt about that colored my response (which would have otherwise been much different in tone, though the underlying message would have been similar).

Also, for anyone who hasn't been here for long: when I said that was a final warning it was because there've been other similar warnings in the past. You won't get booted off of my site for launching on someone one time--we're all human--and it won't come as a surprise. I've summarized my informal posting policy here:

...keep in mind that we're all actual people with actual feelings, and as much as the impersonal remove of online interaction encourages some of the worst in human behavior, be aware that what you write can and sometimes will cause real, genuine pain to the person on the other side of the screen (whether you intend it to or not). Basically, the one guideline for discussion on this site is and always has been the Golden Rule.
If you like what you read here and you want to show your appreciation, one good way you can do it is by respecting the commenting guidelines I've set, which are not only good in and of themselves but save me a lot of stress.

"Many of these were generally intelligent people but it was clear that they had no solid math or science education, so when conspiracy people on the net misused or misinterpreted various terms no one was noticing." This seems to underlie most of the struggles in positive change, I'm finding. You can't in one night teach an emotional problem solver to logically process information. Of course balance is key, but if we had the choice of only one I think the world might be better off with the latter. We'd laugh less for sure, but at least we could be honest with ourselves about the very real consequences of our actions.

"Many of these were generally intelligent people but it was clear that they had no solid math or science education, so when conspiracy people on the net misused or misinterpreted various terms no one was noticing."

Can someone please explain how the supporters for the official position are being "scientific" while skeptics are arguing from an emotional standpoint? The exact opposite is the truth.

I agree with Amanda's general sentiment above but she has mixed up the parties here--the skeptics are trying to bring logic and science to the discussion and it's the apologists for the official story that are using emotional appeals to silence inquiry into alternative explanations. It's the skeptics that want to look at all the evidence and consider alternative explanations and it's the people that support the official version that want to ignore huge amounts of relevant scientific evidence so as to support the conclusion they came to before all the evidence was known.

Is it scientific to refuse to test the thousands of tons of steel and wreckage for explosives? What is the reason for not even testing the wreckage? Instead they shipped the evidence overseas so it can never be tested. In pretty much any other criminal bombing/attack it is standard procedure to consider different alternatives and to test these theories rather than focusing on one theory. What scientist simply ignores alternative explanations? Even if one thinks it's 95% probable that the building burned down from the plane crashes and only 5% probable that there were also explosives, why not test both theories?

Let me remind people that the little bit of wreckage that was saved and tested by independent scientists reveals the presence of thermite and molten steel! So, according to those that support the government's first and only theory (settled on within hours of the attack), a real scientist would not have tested the buildings for explosives and when contrary evidence was presented they would just ignore that evidence without any further study or testing (and not even bother explaining this evidence away). Hmmm, doesn't sound very scientific to me. Also, is it scientific to ignore a multitude of other evidence, both eyewitness and physical, that supported the theory that there were explosions? It is simply unfathomable to me, from both a scientific and criminal justice standpoint, that the official inquiries into 9/11 would literally ignore the eyewitness testimony. No wonder they didn't want any trials.

Furthermore, one should be suspicious of government claims when the main alleged co-conspirator was summarily executed and his body dumped into the sea--actions that were totally illegal. Who benefits from the fact that none of the alleged co-conspirators are around to talk any more and who benefits from not allowing them to defend themselves in court? In fact, officials like Richard Clarke claim many of the alleged co-conspirators had ties with, or were being followed by, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israeli spy agencies. The FBI never indicted the alleged main co-conspirator (Bin Laden) for a crime because, according to the FBI spokesperson, there wasn't enough evidence. So legally and scientifically there is a very weak case for the alleged version.

By the way, even though most apologists are simply trying to shout down any questions regarding 9/11 as "emotional" and "crazy", other, more "scientific" apologists, are trying to come up with theories that explain the physical and eyewitness evidence that casts doubt on the official story. I have seen a recent theory that the aluminum from the planes was superheated and melted (aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than steel), and the melted aluminum mixing with water is what caused all the explosions. I don't know enough about the science of this to know if this explains the explosions, especially on the ground floors and basement areas, but at least it tries to work out a theory that involves the actual evidence rather than starting with a conclusion and then fixing the evidence to fit that conclusion--as the apologists for the official story have done.

In short, most apologists for the official version of 9/11 are not employing a scientific method. When these apologists claim to be using "science" to teach a group of "crazy" conspiracy theorists, they are actually guilty of what they accuse the other side of doing--using emotional arguments rather than logic.

The comments to this entry are closed.