On this sad anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in post-war history I am reminded of the prophetic words spoken by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation in 1961: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.

A memorial site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania where American Airlines Flight 93 crashed. Photo:The Australian

Eisenhower was the supreme commander in western Europe who had led America to victory against one of the most evil regimes in history, a man who had witnessed the depths of human depravity, and wanted finally to warn us that the war machine which had been created to defend freedom in WWII could equally be used for the opposite purpose, and that it was up to the American people to guard against this possibility.

Eisenhower coined the phrase “military industrial complex” which became the catch-cry of the anti-war movement of the 1960s, describing an economic and political fusion of power involving armaments manufacturers, construction companies, banks, democratic governments and puppet dictatorships.

As Marine Major General Smedley Butler put it, “War is a Racket”. In his seminal book on the subject Butler declares, “I spent 33 years in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.”

These and other observations about the racketeering, lying and theft that is the essence of war have informed many of us around the world who today call ourselves “9/11 truthers”.

The central argument of the movement is that 9/11 was a staged, false flag operation designed to propel the US and its allies into war for the sake of profit, oil and empire. False flags are defined in Wikipedia as “covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities”.

There are numerous examples in modern history where clandestine government agencies or rogue operatives have acted in this way, collaborating in the hatching of staged terrorist plots, the launching of self-inflicted military assaults to be blamed on the enemy, and in the formation of domestic terrorist organisations.

There is not enough space here to address these complex cases, but I encourage the reader to do an internet search on phrases like “false flag”, “strategy of tension”, “operation gladio”, “operation northwoods”, “attack on the Maine”, “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, “reichstag fire”, and “the power of nightmares”, to find historical precedents which have a chilling resemblance to the events and aftermath of 9/11.

Some readers may be indignant at the suggestion that a modern democracy would permit its military arm to sacrifice innocent citizens for the sake of a political, economic or military imperative. If you are one of those people then I’m sorry but you have some hard lessons to learn. Use the search terms above and you will discover that I am not lying . You will find this information confirmed by many scholarly sources, and in some cases by impeccably researched BBC documentaries.

So far I have been trying to illustrate the context and precedents for looking at 9/11 as a false flag attack, but let’s now take a look at the specific evidence we have about 9/11, and let’s agree on what we can agree on:

• Planes were flown into the twin towers.
• Towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed, symmetrically, at close to free fall, pulverising most of the concrete of those buildings into a fine dust which covered Manhattan.
• The Pentagon was hit by a third plane.
• A fourth plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
• Around 3,000 people died as a direct result of the attacks.

We can all agree with the mainstream account up to this point. Some have conjectured that the Pentagon may have been hit by something other than a Boeing 757, which is reasonable considering the US government’s refusal to release any video footage from dozens of security cameras, but this view is no longer widely held in the 9/11 truth movement.

It is when we consider the “why”, the “how” and the “who” of these events that I and many others radically depart from the mainstream narrative of 9/11.

I have already hinted at the answer to the “who” part. The evidence points to rogue networks within the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies who were using co-opted Islamic extremists as patsies. This view is corroborated by documented evidence that a key planner of the 9/11 plot and trainer of the hijackers was simultaneously an informant for the FBI, and other evidence that the NSA had been closely monitoring the alleged hijackers prior to 911.

In regard to the “how” questions, the only topic I will address in this piece is the collapse of the towers. All three collapsed at close to free fall, including Building 7, which was not even hit by a plane. There are numerous testimonies from first responders who saw heard and felt explosions before the buildings went down.

The free fall rate of collapse is strong proof that explosives were used, and there is no alternative to this conclusion that is consistent with the laws of physics.

This is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of close to 2,000 qualified architects and engineers. Steel framed buildings do not simply crumble into dust as a result of fire. In the entire history of modern construction, including exhaustive large scale tests on real steel-framed structures, there is no precedent for this type of event.

The exact details of how the demolitions were carried out have not been proven, but what is clear beyond all reasonable doubt is that they were not brought down simply as a consequence of plane impacts and fires.

Currently there is one, and only one, peer reviewed scientific paper which addresses the question of whether explosives were used to bring down the towers.

The researchers, using electron microscopy, found that a residue of a high tech incendiary, nano-thermite, was present in all the dust samples retrieved from New York on 9/11. They also found iron micro-spheres in the dust, an indicator of intense heat way beyond that attained by office fires.

If you are curious to know more about the collapse of the towers, please visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and the Remember Building 7 campaign.

Let’s now return to the “why” of it all, which is the most controversial question of all. Apart from the conquests and theft of resources in the middle east, at home we have been incrementally losing our freedoms too. In Australia, the government has given itself the power to detain suspects without charge, wiretap without warrants, secretly search people’s homes and blast travellers with radiation at airports. T

The secret detention laws are so extreme that even telling someone that you were detained is a federal offence. Those subject to these measures have no right to silence and can only use a legal counsel approved by the government. People can be put under “control orders”, a form of house arrest, even though they have committed no crime. Non-suspects can be detained by force for interrogation, and we have sedition laws which can imprison people merely for their speech rather than for their actions.

According to a recent ABC law report there have been 54 new anti-terror laws passed since 9/11 and 37 prosecutions under these new laws - they are not merely for show.

People have been convicted and given harsh sentences merely for thinking about terrorist attacks. These anti-terror laws were designed to intervene in a “predictive way”, which calls to mind science fiction dystopias like Minority Report. Although the changes have been happening incrementally, the effects are very real and the trend is away from democracy, toward a type of society which can only be called totalitarian.

In short, there has been a power grab, using the fear of terrorism as its justification, and I would argue that this was the plan all along. The power structure which has asserted itself, often described as a “New World Order”, is global in scope, and treats national sovereignty with contempt. It is therefore crucial that upstanding citizens begin to realise the danger we are in and take action to reclaim our national sovereignty and reverse these trends.

Ultimately, 9/11 truthers are average people who are willing to stand up and say that two plus two makes four and who will not be bamboozled by the corporate media or intimidated by Big Brother. Evil triumphs because good people do nothing.

We are trying to do something. Future generations will remember us.

Learn more at truthnews.com.au

445 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Super D says:

      06:11am | 12/09/11

      The problem with the “Truther” movement is it credits the military-industrial complex with a level of competence not witnessed in any other endeavour.

      If you accept that there was a clandestine operation of epic proportions it would have involved literally hundreds of people.  Training hijackers, placing explosives, overall command etc. 

      In the decade since this most technically complicated not one of the many hundreds of people involved have broken ranks.  Not a single one.  There hasn’t been an acrimonious divorce whereby a wife spilled the beans.  This would have to be the most disciplined organisation in modern history.  Not even the union movement, shovels and all, can keep their dirty laundry hidden forever.

      So to believe September 11 is a conspiracy it requires you to accept that there exists a covert group with a casual disregard for the lives of innocents that are capable of delivering a level of competence as well as secrecy that is unparalleled by any other organisation in the world.  Perhaps the towers were brought down by flying pigs?

    • Trevor says:

      08:46am | 12/09/11

      What makes me doubtful of the 911 ‘truth’ movement is this:

      If they were so cold hearted and calculating that they (the US neo-con leadership) could pull 911 off as an inside job, why didn’t they just fake finding WMD in Iraq? That would have been quite easy compared to orchestrating 911 as the truthers believe.

      I’m sure that there is a lot more that went on behind 911, however I can’t believe that the US government would do this. I initially thought that it was the anti-capitalist movement of the time. Remember the organisation S11? They haven’t been mentioned since the towers came down.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      09:16am | 12/09/11

      Not only that, with recent large-scale security breaches like Wikileaks. Surely the Wikileaks files would have included one document, just one, that would have suggested an inside job. After all, they picked up hundreds of thousands of documents.

      But still no such documents have arisen.

    • DocBud says:

      09:39am | 12/09/11

      Simples, Geoff, Julian Assange is actually working for the military industrial complex.

    • james says:

      09:53am | 12/09/11

      I would say that the number of people involved would have had to run into the thousands, not hundreds. And amazingly not one single person had the moral objection to participate in the mass killing of their own citizens. Given that the republicans could not even keep the watergate scandel quiet, how likely is it that they could keep something like this quiet? Another thing that I would like to know, if the twin towers did indeed collapse due to explosives, how the hell did the explosives at the point of the planes’ impact survive the 2000 degree inferno for the 30 odd minutes before the towers’ collapsed? These theories leak like sieves and until anyone can produce a single piece of conclusive, verifiable evidence they will remain fairy tales in the minds of those who choose to believe in them. The real story here is how anyone is stupid enough to believe in them in the first place.

    • Andrew says:

      10:44am | 12/09/11

      Hereward is 100% correct in this article.  Unfortunately, most people’s disbelief of 9/11 truth revolves around the severe trauma they experienced on that day, as well as their pre-existing beliefs about the government and how they think the world works.

      This trauma and these beliefs make them unwilling to look at the actual hard, physical evidence which proves beyond any doubt that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, were brought down by controlled demolition.  In total, 267 storeys collapsed in less than 31 seconds, which is physically impossible without the use of explosives.

      The evidence in the following video titled “Solving the Mystery of WTC 7”, released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, proves that building WTC 7 was demolished using explosives.  The evidence in this video is very blatant and absolutely impossible to refute.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

      This highly engrossing video above is an abridged version of the following film titled “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and is more than two hours in length.  It is not possible to understand what happened on 11th September, 2001 without considering the mountain of evidence in this film which proves the use of controlled demolition on 11th September, 2001 beyond any doubt.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=11m29s

    • Ghost says:

      11:18am | 12/09/11

      @Andrew

      I didn’t experience any trauma that day.

      I believe Governments are generally corrupt.

      There is no doubt the buildings were brought down by terrorist act.

      Whilst you gather and base your science on YouTube, no one should take you seriously.

      It’s time you either sought out real evidence or seek help for your lack of ability to function in the real world.

    • kyra says:

      12:29pm | 12/09/11

      Giving time to truthers is li,ke giving time to anti-vaccers, no good can come of it, just beacse someone has a different opinion does not mean it should be afforded equal weight.

    • Chris L says:

      01:03pm | 12/09/11

      “It’s time you either sought out real evidence…” - Fair enough, Ghost, but if the testimony of 1,500 architects and engineers does not count, what would constitute real evidence?

    • LC says:

      01:44pm | 12/09/11

      I have no trauma caused by the day. I did not lose any family members. And I remeber exactly where I was the day it happened: sitting in my lounge room, watching the late news after Rove Live. Sandra Sully was speechless when she broke the news.

      Andrew, it’s far more likely that YOU are the one suffering some kind of trauma. Being unable to cope with the idea that terrorists can come in at anytime and cause absolute havoc, and potentially killing you, or someone you care about, you instead create a theory that it was “a government plot” and try and take some comfort in that.

      @Kyra. Agreed.

      The only screen/press time they should be given should be based on the amount of evidence they can present. In both cases the evidence is 0, thus should be given no more than a mention for no less than 2 scentences. Eg:
      “Mr. Andrew belives that twin towers and WTC 7’s collapse was caused by a controlled demolition. However, at the time of printing there is no reliable evidence to support the theory.”

    • Ghost says:

      02:15pm | 12/09/11

      @Chris L

      The 1500 Architects and Engineers don’t say what brought the tower down.

      They ask for an independent investigation.

      http://www.ae911truth.org/index.php

      You may be an architect, you may be an engineer, but that doesn’t mean you are qualified in the complexities of skyscrapers and their structure does it?

    • Sean says:

      02:19pm | 12/09/11

      The fact that Andrew (John and all his other ‘friends’) comes in here posting under multiple names, means even he isn’t sure of his position.  He doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to post under one name.  He has to create fake names to support his theory.

    • Andrew says:

      02:21pm | 12/09/11

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is the section which presents testimony from qualified engineers and other qualified professionals who all agree that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, were demolished using controlled demolition:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h40m53s

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:25pm | 12/09/11

      It was the Stonecutters.

    • Ted says:

      03:14pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, I have no dount the 1,500 Architects & Engineers believe what they say, just look at the AGW sceintists. PS, talk to fire fighters an metalurgists befor you believe an architect about metal at 2000+ temp.

    • Seth Brundle says:

      05:28pm | 12/09/11

      Some people here seem to be implying that the fact that no one has “broken ranks” and “told all” means that it can’t have been a government conspiracy.  I would like to point out that up to this point in time, no one has actually claimed credit for the attack.  Bin Laden himself has actually denied any involvement several times.  So whether you think it was the government or a terrorist group, they have managed to keep it all secret up till now which makes this point moot.

    • sceptical says:

      10:34pm | 12/09/11

      how do you know, like he said you dont want to believe, your believing media and what theyfeed you. maybe those involved are living somewhere together and are given everything they want. if they dont comply than their loved ones are hurt. maybe a bit out there for you, but good people have a weakness its called caring. maybe they were forced to vanish so their family survived.

    • Chris says:

      01:50pm | 13/09/11

      @sceptical: You’re kidding, right? You actually believe that the government would detain its own citizens and threaten to harm their loved ones if they spill the beans about 9/11 being an inside job? You really think that a new government would continue this? A government that is pulling troops out of the war that 9/11 initiated?

    • Tony Monsanto says:

      07:22pm | 13/09/11

      Geoff - Brisbane, Surely you know wikileaks contained not a single, not one single TOP SECRET file.  As DocBud says he is part of a very elite group.  A group that has the Rothschild’s legal council to represent them.
      The only trap of another investigation is that it could end up being as useless as the 1st NIST inquiry.  Investigate NIST.

    • LC says:

      11:00am | 14/09/11

      @ Skeptical,

      If 9/11 were an inside job, there would be involvement form people in the CIA, military and the Pentagon. If they wanted to get the word out anonymously, they most certianly could. You’re a clown if you genuinely belive otherwise.

      They fact that they haven’t after (not including the planning stages) 10 years does not look good for you side.

    • Margot says:

      11:40am | 14/09/11

      I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.The whole plan was orchestrated by a bunch of pissed off Muslims and no-one else however I think that certain tiny circles within the u.s government would have know that something was going to happen and decided not to act. After all the attack works in their interest. When the towers came down I think everybody from osama bin laden to whoever had the intel that an attack was going to take place would have gasped in astonishment.I don’t believe that it was a controlled demolition but terrible engineering with second rate steel (the building industry in the 70’s was poorly regulated) that brought the towers down. WTC7 is the only thing that troubles me but considering that it was a cia building who’s to say that they haven’t had the building set to blow from the day it was built? There would be many reasons for them to do so,primarily to stop people getting hold of information in the event of government collapse. Americans have always been a paranoid peoples after all.This is what makes sense to me and this is why it’s been covered up so well,because maybe 10 people in the government would have been complicit and no more.
      Sometimes I think the “truthers” play into the u.s governments hands by suggesting that no-one could do such a phenomenal thing but the ever mighty u.s.a. Heaven forbid a few handfuls of dirt poor arabs could do such a thing,now wouldn’t that be scary!

    • B says:

      04:16pm | 14/09/11

      @kyra

      Glad to see I can weigh your opinions lightly then!!

    • acotrel says:

      06:18am | 12/09/11

      To have a whole economy based on weapons production seems to be a way of making the next war more certain of happening.  I’m happy that the Gillard government is trying to move our R&D efforts towards finding efficient alternative energy sources.  Our Australian defence manufacturing sector is now mainly defunct.  To have it as the basis of our technology efforts was never really inspiring.

    • Aaron says:

      09:41am | 12/09/11

      Australia’s DSTO is actually very good with what they do, and they get good funding. Most of the “R&D” that’s done here is actually for the US

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:28am | 12/09/11

      The problem with your argument is that you ask us to accept that governments that cannot keep their sex lives secret, that can’t emplace (to me, at least) reasonably basic policy and law, that bicker and argue like schoolchildren, are simultaneously able to undertake the massive, massive cover up of information that would have to involve thousands of people working in absolute collusion.

      You then argue that they wanted war and oil.  Thing is, if they’d orchestrated 9/11, then I would suggest that many of us would have supported a war simply because - all the confected (and ultimately unproveable) nonsense about WMD hurt them, not helped them.  To me, it wasn’t necessary - if they’d said “This is where Osama is; we’re going to go get him”, they’d have had the support anyway.

      No, it’s too fantastic.  I get why you would argue the points, and I certainly agree there is a lot about true power that many of the public just don’t get, but no, not this.  It’s too much.

    • L. says:

      10:10am | 12/09/11

      “The problem with your argument is that you ask us to accept that governments .....are simultaneously able to undertake the massive, massive cover up of information that would have to involve thousands of people working in absolute collusion.”

      Of course they can..

      Just look at how well guarded nuke lauch codes are, or stealth tech, or SAS operations, or submarine movements etc etc.

      The gov can keep secrets alright, when they keep the politicians away from them.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:14am | 12/09/11

      @ L:

      False examples.  Those secrets are known to only a *few* people, and they’re credibly defensible with encryption for the places where the knowledge is stored.  9/11 requires thousands of people, all with intimate knowledge of the intent and operation, to keep their yaps shut.  People are the least encrypted knowledge bases of all.

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:27am | 12/09/11

      @L yes, but you’re talking about witholding information, not out and out fabrications.  Lies are another matter entirely - one good whistle blown and the whole pack of cards falls over.

      Let’s put it this way - if WMD was a lie…why lie?  They didn’t need to lie on that.  Why do it?  No, they had info they thought was reliable (and I still think Iraq HAD WMD but got rid of it once they knew the U.S. were coming).

      Saying that, I agree with you that government security can be very good.  But covering up lies like this?  It’s too much, and it didn’t happen. 

      Osama is on record stating that the buildings falling over was “a massive bonus”.  He didn’t think that would happen either.  He got some deluded fools to fly planes into buildings, and buildings fell down.  It changed the world.

    • Chris L says:

      01:11pm | 12/09/11

      You wouldn’t need thousands of government workers. With plenty of preparation the charges could have been placed in the buildings slowly with less than 100 people. Anyone else involved could be ignorant patsies who had no idea they were fulfilling any dastardly plot.

      Apparently the reason the planes could not be taken down before reaching their targets is because Chaney decided suddenly on air force training maneuvres up north. No doubt just a coincidence, but if this were a false flag operation he’s already cleared the skies without needing to share the secret with anyone.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:24pm | 12/09/11

      The mistake you make Mahhrat is believing the government knew the full details of what was happening. The President is always afforded plausible deniability by the shady banking puppet masters pulling all the strings - especially when that President is as dopey as Bush. It would not have taken a team of thousands to orchestrate 9/11. If you don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job, you by default believe it was the work of 19 men supported by Al Qaeda. 

      Whatever you believe about that day, the things that occurred in one building are troubling. WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed. WTC7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7 did not have jet fuel splashed over the walls. WTC7 had broken windows and a few paper spot fires. WTC7 also contained offices for the CIA, Department of Defense and the Secret Service. Now do you think the government would really place those critical assets in a building that could be felled by a few broken windows and spot fires? Do you really think that building wouldn’t have been consistently stress tested with hundreds of different procedures created for just this type of scenario? Do you really think WTC7 couldn’t have extinguished those spot fires automatically and that it is in the building code of New York for it to have this capability. The further you dig, the more troubling 9/11 becomes.

    • Ghost says:

      02:31pm | 12/09/11

      @ Sad

      As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building

      Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.

      After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts

      Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.

      During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30

      In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.

      At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.

      The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, Column 79 soon buckled - pulling the East penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the entire building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

      The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

      I am pretty certain scenario’s involving planes smashing into buildings wasn’t thought of as a building stress test.

      ‘Few paper spots fires…’

      What’s most troubling, is people with no idea imagine what occurred and pretend that their new invented theory is real.

    • JC says:

      02:38pm | 12/09/11

      Why would they rig up WTC 7 with explosives and not use a plane on it, if this super secret organisation is so smart why would they leave such a huge loose end, a loose end that your average joe can find and make a youtube video about.

      Also, who would agree to fly a plane into a building.

    • Andrew says:

      01:46am | 13/09/11

      sad, ghost explanation is absolutely correct, as for collapsing at freefall speed, rubbish, freefall speed is something like 9 seconds, go and have a look at the actual video, not the video shown on scepic sites. It clearly show the penthouse starting to collapse then 7 or 8 seconds later the building collapsing, over all it takes at least 15 seconds (proberly longer because there is no video showing exactly when it finishes collapsing)

    • Macca says:

      06:41am | 12/09/11

      The free fall argument is nonsense. The plane flew onto the towers crippling the Steel Structure. The fuel of the plane then burned, weakening the structure further.

      Do you have any idea how much concrete is in each floor? And how much that concrete would weigh? No remove several floors of structural steel below thousands of tonnes of concrete, and you get the idea of why the building collapsed on itself.

      Once one concrete floor started dropping, the whole building was gone.

      I don’t know the details of building 7, but the freefall argument; nonsense.

    • acotrel says:

      07:19am | 12/09/11

      The fact that the buildings didn’t just fall over immediately when hit, is amazing ! Perhaps I see these things with different eyes ?

    • John says:

      07:49am | 12/09/11

      Yeah the tin light plane that breaks into pieces as soon as it hits a run way was able to slice all the 8x8 central core columns which were all interconnected. There is no way the buildings would of collapsed, unless the core columns were entirely cut every 10 floors. Since one plane did not even cause 10% damage to one floor of core columns. So by my calculations, you would of needed 10 planes every 10 floors which would equal about 100 planes. and then If you were lucky, then it might collapse. Thermite and demolitions brought it down, case closed.

    • KH says:

      07:49am | 12/09/11

      There was also the construction style of the building.  If I remember correctly, there were steel cores in these towers, which as a result of the jet fuel explosions (keep in mind, these jets were headed for LA from Boston - they would have had almost full fuel tanks in NYC) melted the central cores, which brought down the structure.  Because of the height of the building, there were no straight down elevator shafts - there were ‘landing floors’ where you had to change lifts.  It was this form of construction that led to the fatal weakening of the structure.  The jet fuel going down the central core would have spread explosive material down through the building, and there would have been additional explosions.  Basically, the structure failed in the centre, which would have brought it down the way it did come down in the end.  I have even seen a simulation of this somewhere - years ago. 

      If any of these ‘conspiracy stories’ were true, surely they would have appeared on the front pages over the last 10 years, not just on shadowy websites and alleged ‘documentaries’ looking for controversy.  Further, why no whistleblowers in all this time?  They are willing to give up just about everything else, so why not something like this?  There are enough right wing nut jobs in the US who want the central government to be brought to heel - something like this would certainly do that…...

    • Paul says:

      08:04am | 12/09/11

      Just adding to Macca, and im not claiming to know exactly how it works, but i was always under the impression that once the top floors were weakened enough and they started moving they went from being a dead load to a live load.

      Typically each floor will have been designed before being built to have dead load and live load capacities. The top floors (including there massive concrete and steel content) simply became a live load that the building and each floor below was never designed to take, furthermore this just added up as the building fell and collected more weight.

      The questions that surround the fall of building 7 still are quite interesting though…

    • ronny jonny says:

      09:15am | 12/09/11

      @John
      767 weighs 137,000 lbs, empty, even that weight at a couple of hundred kms an hour into the side of the structure, doesn’t matter if it was aluminium or feathers, it’s a tremendous impact. Mass x Velocity = Force

    • bennie says:

      09:38am | 12/09/11

      You don’t know the details of building 7?  I suggest you youtube WTC7.  I’m not completely in the ‘truther’ camp, but I believe that there are questions to be answered.

      Watch the video of World Trade Centre building # 7 collapsing, and you’ll see that it bears a striking resemblance to the way buildings are demolished, despite no plane crashing into it, and not a great deal of debris falling on it either.  If you get really deep into it, there exists footage of the owner of the WTC saying that they decided to “pull” building 7.  The word “pull” being used extensively in demolition to describe pressing the button to commence demolition.

    • Jas says:

      10:46am | 12/09/11

      “I don’t know the details of building 7, but the freefall argument; nonsense. “

      You admit you dont know anything about freefall, then your claim that it is nonesense, is based on ignorance at best.

      Ill explain quickly. NIST have reluctantly agreed that there was a period of freefall in the “collapse” of building 7 for approx 2 seconds. For that to occur, All the structural support across the ENTIRE building had to be removed INSTANTANEOUSLY across several floors. The ONLY thing that can explain that, is controlled demolition.

      Thats why the powers that be, cant explain its collapse, or wont. Their “investigation” goes only as far as the point of collapse initiation, then fails to explain how it came down, the official position at this time, being, “we dont know”

      The fact that explosives can not be planted in a building in a matter of hours, and the fact that the collapse was reported on live TV, half an hour before it collapsed, ( foreknowledge ) and the actual countdown to the collapse, is futher evidence, though freefall alone, is a smoking gun.

      Perhaps next time you offer an opinion, you might try making it a more informed one.

      http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/

      It would go a long way to making your posts more credible.

    • Aaron says:

      11:06am | 12/09/11

      @ronny jonny

      Mass x Velocity = Momentum
      Mass x Acceleration = Force

      Still, your principal is sound.

    • Aaron says:

      11:28am | 12/09/11

      @ronny jonny. Mass by velocity is momentum, not force. A typical aircraft will have its total takeoff weight being about 30% fuel. That’s a lot of fuel. Now, a 767 is a predominantly aluminium structure, where as the trade centres are concrete and steel, both of which are far more dense than the alumuinium. It is conceivable that they could withstand the impact. If I recall correctly, at the first attempt on the trade centers in ‘93, it was quoted that these buildings were designed to withstand the impact from a jet. This is a full 8 years before 9/11. The buildings did exactly that. They withstood the impact, they just didn’t survive the with the elevated temperatures and weakened structure.

    • Andrew says:

      11:54am | 12/09/11

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows qualified professionals discussing the implications of the admission of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) that building WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall speed for the first 100 feet of its collapse:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=34m32s

    • ronny jonny says:

      11:56am | 12/09/11

      Whoopsy! Bit loose on the formulas there. If the formulas don’t fit my theory, I’ll just make some up, or find some on the internet that do.

      Thanks for the correction

    • Jane2 says:

      12:32pm | 12/09/11

      @Aaron, what does density have to do with it. Water is far less dense than concrete but anything hitting it from a height of just 5 storeys and freefall speed (far far slower than the speed of a jet), isnt going to know the difference.

    • gobsmack says:

      01:12pm | 12/09/11

      Something that strikes me as curious is that when much smaller buildings are to be demolished, the demolition experts spend a great deal of time and planning to ensure the building collapses in a confined area.  Even then things can go wrong.
      If the twin towers was a controlled demolition, on the face of it, it would have to be one of the most expertrly executed demolition ever. 
      However, the prevailing explanation (which I adhere to) that it was caused by the planes would appear to make the neat collapse even more unlikely.
      I am left to conclude that there must have been something unique in the design of the towers that caused them to collapse vertically rather than tipping over.

    • Aaron says:

      02:49pm | 12/09/11

      Density and volume determine mass. And there would be far more mass in the few stories of WTC than there was on the plane. This would also help the tower not fall over immediately on impact. (Also, I noticed another Aaron posted something similar before me).

    • Ted says:

      03:25pm | 12/09/11

      gobsmack, I am still wondering how you get the required amount of exposives into the building and then organise the terrorists to crash the plane exactly above the bombs. There must have been a large cross painted on the building at the required impact point that normal humans and recording devices can see.

    • Andrew says:

      02:00am | 13/09/11

      Beanie you really dont have a clue what your talking about, I dont suppose the owner could have being talking about pulling the firefighters out by any chance. And no the word pull in demolition circles does not refer to pushing the button, it refers to hooking cables up to a building and pulling it in a certain direction so when it is demolished it falls in a certain direction. As for building 7 not having much damage to it, go have alook at some videos, there are clearly large holes in the building, many firefighters reported large damage and fires (some are heard on video talking on video and saying there was a big danger of collapse). As for everyone saying the towers and #7 fell at freefall speed, have a look at the proper videos, they clearly take longer to fall then they would take if they fell at freefall speed. Freefall speed is around 9 seconds, they clearly take longer then that to fall completely.

    • Jim says:

      07:28am | 12/09/11

      Mate, you can’t even shag a Kardashian these days without it getting into the tabloids.
      If this had been a huge plot, some of the plotters would have long ago sold their stories to the media.
      You need to have more faith in human stupidity, which will triumph over well-planned schemes any time grin

    • Brett says:

      03:35pm | 12/09/11

      But of course the shadowy cold hearted government had all of the consipirators killed…or shipped to Guantanemo! Thats why noone has spoken out, they are all dead.
      Tis a cunning plan that cannot possibly fail!

    • Brett says:

      03:35pm | 12/09/11

      But of course the shadowy cold hearted government had all of the consipirators killed…or shipped to Guantanemo! Thats why noone has spoken out, they are all dead.
      Tis a cunning plan that cannot possibly fail!

    • Seth Brundle says:

      12:13pm | 13/09/11

      So if it was a terrorist group, why haven’t any of them spilled the beans, or even taken credit ?

    • marley says:

      07:30am | 12/09/11

      The basic argument boils down to:  there is a military industrial complex, it has done nasty things in the past, therefore it must have been responsible for the collapse of the WTC.  That’s a massive logic fail.

      As to evidence:  only one peer-reviewed article explaining the collapse of the WTC as a result of the planes crashing into it?  Kindly cite the peer-reviewed articles in reputable engineering journals which support your theory.

      And, as you say, there is no precedent for the collapse of steel-framed buildings.  Kindly cite the precedents for buildings, steel framed or otherwise, having been hit by a very large aircraft at full speed, fully loaded with aviation fuel?

    • Andrew says:

      11:11am | 12/09/11

      Marley, aviation fuel is essentially kerosene which doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel.  When you go camping and cook your food over a kerosene-powered flame, does the metal grill that you’re cooking on sag and collapse?  The answer is obviously, “No”.

      In any case, most of the fuel was burnt off in the initial explosions that occurred when the planes hit the towers.  It is impossible that subsequent fires could weaken both of the Twin Towers so that they each collapsed in less than 12 seconds at a rate of more than 9 storeys per second, which is exactly what happened.

      The reason that both the Twin Towers collapsed so quickly is that they were blown apart using explosives.  The fact that the concrete in both of the Twin Towers was pulverised to a micro-fine dust that piled up 15 inches thick on the ground and covered the people fleeing so that they were painted gray is further proof of what is already obvious - that the Twin Towers were demolished in a controlled manner using explosives. 

      Footage of the enormous concrete dust cloud over Manhattan after the collapse of both of the Twin Towers is available all over the internet.  That enormous dust cloud is those two buildings, floating through the air.

    • iansand says:

      11:21am | 12/09/11

      Steel does not have to melt to begin to lose its strength.

    • Tom says:

      11:41am | 12/09/11

      Jet fuel can burn at up to 900 degrees celcius. “Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel.” (source: http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621). Ergo, it is easily a hot enough burn to reduce the strength of steel to its failure point. Remember, it does not have to melt the steel to cause it to fail.

    • LC says:

      12:12pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, yes you are right in saying that steel will not MELT from a building fire. But it will weaken and be more prone to bending. Add to that the fact that the main weight-bearing column was effectively severed and the building collapse is quite easily explained. Steel does not need to melt to bring a steel building to the ground.
      http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

      As for your point on aviation fuel, lets think about what there is in a normal office building: Wooden furniture, carpet, plastic materials with a high temperature release. All of which would go up quite easily and get quite hot after the aviation fuel sparked the fire.
      Next theory please…

    • Andrew says:

      02:37pm | 12/09/11

      Hi LC

      The following web-page provides graphic evidence for what is widely known by professional structural engineers, that no steel-structured skyscraper has EVER collapsed as a result of fire prior to 11th September, 2001.

      http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

      Yet three steel-structured buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, all allegedly collapsed catastrophically due to fire according to the official story!  Furthermore, in total, 267 (110 + 110 + 47) storeys collapsed in less than 31 (12 + 12 + 7) seconds which is a total rate of collapse of a minimum of 8.6 storeys per second.

      In short, the official story is nonsensical.  The only possible explanation for the collapses of these three buildings on 11th September, 2001 is controlled demolition involving explosives.

    • Tom says:

      05:17pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, I would offer up http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm as rebuttal. Basically your point is rather dishonest, as the event represented a lot of firsts - i.e. the first time a plane the size of a 767 had hit a building constructed in the manner of the WTC towers. Therefore it is irrelevant to say that it is the first time a building has collapsed in such a manner.

    • Andrew says:

      07:05pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Tom

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that building WTC 1 and building WTC 2, also known as the Twin Towers, were both deliberately designed to withstand multiple impacts from large-scale aircraft without collapsing:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=52m54s

      Please note that the professionals providing their testimony here have outlined their qualifications, credentials and experience earlier in the film.

    • Andrew says:

      07:14pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Tom at 11:41am above

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that the fires in the Twin Towers burned at about 750 degrees Fahrenheit which is about 400 degrees Celsius:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=54m34s

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:36pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew - The designer of the twin towers discussed the theory behind designing the towers to withstand an impact. He had accounted for a plane travelling slowly, perhaps lost in fog while waiting to land.
      They took into account the largest possible plane at the time (A 767 I think, but don’t quote me), moving at a fraction of the speed, with a near empty tank of fuel.

      The calculation did not consider a larger plane at high speeds being flown intentionally into the towers with a nearly full tank of fuel.

      Additionally, if we accept your premise that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion, can you explain how they were rigged to do so, given the amount of work that would have been involved, with none of the workers in any of the buildings being aware?

    • LC says:

      09:37pm | 12/09/11

      Yes Andrew, no fire has ever leveled a skyscraper in the world’s history. No plane has ever caused a skyscraper to collapse either. But other than 9/11, I only know of one example of that happening. And it wasn’t a full-size passenger jet with near-full fuel tanks. This applies here too. The jet hit the building, but that in and of itself didn’t bring it down. What bought it down was the combination of the plane impact damaging the support colums, inferno that caused, weakening the steel which was all that was left holding the tower after the main supports were irreparably and severely damaged.

      How many other examples of the same scenario, with all the same circumstances, caused buildings to collapse which can you recall? I only know of two. Only two. They are WTC 1&2 in New York. How many events that which fall in line with those circumstances have actually happened. Only two; WTC 1&2 in New York.

      If the jet had little-no fuel, the fire wouldn’t have been nearly as severe and much fewer lives would be lost, and maybe, just MAYBE the buildings would still be standing. But that’s not the case.

      As for your rubbish on building 7, seeing as you like you tube videos so much, I’ll link one for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8 No. Better, yet, I’ll make it two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

      And again Andrew, steel begins to weaken at 300 degrees Celsius.

    • Andrew says:

      09:14pm | 14/09/11

      Hi LC at 9:37pm on 12-Sep-2011 above

      You are quite correct that 300 degrees Celsius is the temperature at which steel begins to lose its strength.  However, at 400 degrees Celsius, steel retains more than 90% of its strength and at 500 degrees Celsius, steel retains more than 70% of its strength.  Please see the following graph:

      http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that the fires in the Twin Towers burned at about 750 degrees Fahrenheit which is about 400 degrees Celsius:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=54m34s

      Therefore the steel structure of the buildings in the vicinity of the fires retained more than 90% of its strength and the steel structure of the buildings which was not in the vicinity of the fires retained 100% of its strength.  Therefore it is absolutely impossible that the fires in any of the buildings could have caused them to collapse since the steel structures that held them up retained at least 90% of their strength.  This is why no skyscraper has collapsed as a result of fire prior to 11th September, 2001.

      Your reasoning regarding the impacts of the planes and the fires they caused is fundamentally flawed.  In engineering terms, these are two separate events.  The impacts of the planes constitute mechanical (ie. kinetic) impacts upon the steel structures of the buildings whereas the fires that the planes caused constitute thermal impacts upon the steel structures of the buildings.  That buildings WTC 1 and WTC 2 (the Twin Towers) stood for approximately 102 minutes and 56 minutes respectively after the time of the impact of the planes is proof that both buildings withstood the impacts from the planes without collapsing just like they were designed to in the interests of public safety.  That these two buildings subsequently collapsed is proof that fire from the planes could not be the cause of collapse since fire has never brought down a skyscraper in history, as you have admitted yourself.

    • LC says:

      11:41pm | 14/09/11

      Andrew, again, fire IN AND OF ITSELF did not bring down tower and has not bought any other tower down. If you read my post, you’d find I said the combination of the plane impact damaging it’s supports AND the fire bought the tower down. Furthermore, the architect, Minoru Yamasaki, only made the claim they were collision proof assuming something the mass of a 707 would hit it unintentionally with low fuel in a low-speed collision, not something larger with full tanks of fuel being deliberately rammed into it at high speed. As the building’s designer claimed,  ”[TheTwin Towers] were probably among the half-dozen strongest buildings in the world, but it couldn’t withstand that kind of insult”

      Now, if you can find me a case of another building
      - Built like the one of twin towers: A Steel, tube-in-tube design with at least 50 floors.
      - Which was hit by a plane similar to or larger than 767 going at full speed with near-full tanks of fuel.
      - Which subsequently knocked off the fireproofing of the steel around the impact point. (Don’t say that’s not possible, if it can happen because of renovations, it can happen because of an impact like that.)
      - That caused a large fire which burned for at least 90 minutes and did not collapse
      Then I’ll admit that you have a point.

      Until then, as we have no cases to use as a precedent to compare against the events at the WTC, all you have is baseless conspiracy theory. Sorry.

    • Fiona says:

      07:33am | 12/09/11

      I’ve heard the conspiracy theories, including the one that claimed united 93 was actually diverted to an empty field and the passengers let off. If so, where did they go?
      You say you’re trying to do something against evil. What is it you’re trying to do? All you’ve come up with is theories about who and why. Where’s your evidence? You’ve had 10 years

    • DocBud says:

      09:30am | 12/09/11

      By an amazingly unfortunate coincidence, as they were leaving Flight 93 a UFO landed and abducted them. They’ve spent the last ten years being anally probe by the Zorboids on Zorbiton.

    • Andrew says:

      12:08pm | 12/09/11

      Fiona says:

      “Where’s your evidence?  You’ve had 10 years.”

      There is a monumental mountain of evidence staring all of us in the face but most of us are too busy or too proud or too scared to look at it.  It was manifestly obvious as early as 2003 to anybody who cared to investigate that 9/11 was a set-up.

      The following film titled “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and is more than two hours in length:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=11m29s

      Here is the shorter, 15-minute version titled “Solving the Mystery of WTC 7”, which has also recently been released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

      It has more than 400,000 views.

    • Fiona says:

      01:00pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, I have actually watched films about alternate explanations for 9/11, just as I’ve watched films about 9/11. There are a lot of holes in the theories, too many at this point for me to change my mind.
      Thanks for the laugh DocBud.

    • Ghost says:

      01:04pm | 12/09/11

      @Andrew

      390,000 of those are yours, so numbers don’t really matter?

    • TimB says:

      01:12pm | 12/09/11

      “It has more than 400,000 views”

      So what Andrew? Rebecca Black’s Friday video got a shit ton (i.e millions) of views. That doesn’t make it any less crap.

    • Mick says:

      01:30pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew mate they won’t look at that, they already know all they need to know without looking at it. They make spurious arguments about fuel (when it burnt up on impact otherwise where did the enormous fireball come from) and are paralysed by cognitive dissonance - an inability to face reality because of what it means to their worldview / paradigm. It’s simply impossible for a building of that size to collapse at near free fall speed, which it did (they all did). IMPOSSIBLE. Even if the “top bit broke off and fell crushing the lower floors in a domino effect” there is mechanical resistance on the way down - it is not possible the weight pulverised the concrete AND travelled at free fall speed. It IS EITHER OR NOT BOTH.

    • marley says:

      01:49pm | 12/09/11

      @Mick - the fuel burnt up on impact?  Yep, sure.  Tell me, when you light a match it only burns for a few seconds, right?  Yet somehow, wonder of wonders, that few seconds is enough to get the wood in the fireplace burning, and you’ve got a lot more heat than the match ever put out. 

      Do you seriously think that 90,000l of aviation fuel igniting isn’t going to get everything flammable around it going?  Like, for example, furniture, carpets, wooden panelling, the paper in the xerox machine, computers, the cleaning chemicals in the broom closet?  Geesh, man, think it through.

    • Andrew says:

      03:01pm | 12/09/11

      Marley, prior to 11th September, 2001, no steel-structured skyscraper has collapsed due to fire as shown on the following web page:

      http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

      I invite you to consider the irrefutable evidence in the following film titled “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, were collapsed using controlled demolition:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=11m29s

    • Ghost says:

      03:19pm | 12/09/11

      Hey um Andrew,

      Could you post me those links, about so many architects, I can’t seem to find them on this blog????

    • Ghost says:

      03:23pm | 12/09/11

      @Andrew Tin Foil John,

      Any estimate on how many tonnes of explosives were necessary to bring down all three buildings?

      Any idea how many holes were drilled, fuses cut and fixed?

      Any idea how many years they spent physically doing this in order to achieve this wonderfully perfect demolition?

      It’s the only ‘logical’ explanation.

    • Andrew says:

      05:23pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Ghost

      The demolition of the Twin Towers appears to involve the use of explosives of some nature as well as mililtary-grade thermite.

      In an office fire, it is not possible to generate enough heat to melt steel, yet there is undeniable evidence of molten steel during the collapse of the Twin Towers and in the rubble pile afterwards.  (Please see the 1h:21m:57s mark in the film below for this evidence.)  Therefore, there must have been some type of incendiary used to melt the steel such as thermite.

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is the section which discusses the irrefutable evidence in dust samples from the debris of the collapses of the Twin Towers for the use of military grade thermite during the collapse to melt the steel structural connections and steel beams, causing the towers to collapse:
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h32m17s

      To answer your question, I don’t know how may tonnes of explosives were required in addition to the use of thermite but I have enough intelligence to understand that the only way each of the 400 plus metre tall Twin Towers could collapse directly vertically into their own footprints in less than 12 seconds each is if they were collapsed in an expert manner using explosive, controlled demolition.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:48pm | 12/09/11

      @ Andrew:  “In an office fire, it is not possible to generate enough heat to melt steel, yet there is undeniable evidence of molten steel during the collapse of the Twin Towers and in the rubble pile afterwards.”

      If you’re referring to the stream of yellow stuff pouring out the tower, It’s not molten steel.  http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

      It’s most likely aluminium, you twit.

      Similarly, the “molten steel” in the rubble pile is nothing but a reaction of the iron with the air.  And the sulfur.  And half a hundred other chemicals there at the time.

    • TC says:

      11:54pm | 12/09/11

      Ghost I think andrew is playing the old “If you say it enough times it becomes the truth” card.  Unfortunately the approach, as andrew probably knows, is quite effective.  Its a good way of ignoring points that disagree with your own view.

    • Rob says:

      11:14am | 13/09/11

      I read up on nano-thermite, the residue of which was supposed to be found everywhere, and something interesting was said about it’s stability. It was considered highly unstable especially in areas with high levels of static electricity. This problem was solved in 2010 by the addition of carbon fibre which made it a very stable explosive.

      So before that choosing a very large amount of unstable nano-thermite as the explosive to take down the towers after two fully fueled up very large planes crashed into them wouldn’t be even considered. Or if it was used then most likely it would exploded straight away.

      I am no building demolition expert but when was the last time a building was demolished from the top down like the towers fell?

    • Andrew says:

      09:33pm | 13/09/11

      Hi St. Michael at 5:48pm, 12-Sep-2011 above

      You have asserted that the yellow, molten metal pouring from building WTC 2 (South Tower) is

      “most likely aluminium, you twit”.

      However, it is impossible that the yellow, molten metal pouring out of building WTC 2 (South Tower) prior to its collapse was molten aluminium, because molten aluminium is silver in colour, not yellow in colour.

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that the yellow molten metal pouring out of building WTC 2 (South Tower) prior to its collapse was molten iron and not molten aluminium as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claimed.  It is widely known in the aluminium industry that molten aluminium is silver in colour.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h25m48s

      The melting point of iron is 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 degrees Fahrenheit), whereas the following expert testimony in the above film affirms that the fires in the buildings WTC 1 and WTC 2 burned at about 400 degrees Celsius (750 degrees Fahrenheit).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=54m34s

      The presence of this molten iron points directly to the use of an incendiary in the building such as miltary-grade thermite to melt the iron, since the fire resulting from the plane impact could not have burned hot enough to melt iron.

      Here is the start of the section discussing the irrefutable evidence in dust samples from the debris of the collapses for the use of military-grade thermite during the collapses to melt the structural steel connections and steel beams, causing the towers to collapse:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h32m17s

    • LC says:

      11:47am | 14/09/11

      @ Andrew,

      No, it’s still likely alluminium.

      Firstly, at lower melting temperatures it looks silvery, but a higher temperatures it can be yellow/orange.

      Secondly, it’s may not even be pure aluminium. It’d be mixed with other things in the fire, including glass, plastic or wood. It’s a burning building, not a foundry.

      Thridly, well, I’d talk about the whole issue with the wriring and work requried for a controlled demolition to work and why no-one spotted it, but seeing as someone has mentioned it earlier and you haven’t attempted to rebut the claims, you aren;t listening, so if I did I’d be wasting my time.

    • Jas says:

      01:07pm | 14/09/11

      No, it’s still likely alluminium.

      lol..  even after been shown how it can not possibly be aluminium.. 

      precious.

      but unfortunately, for the victims, and their families, and the hundreds of thousands of other innocent men women and children who have lost their lives since, based on the lies of sept 1 2001, we are unlikely to ever know for sure, unless their is a proper, transparent, independent investigation.

      the chorus of calls for that not to occur, is truly bewildering, the crime of the century! hey! - lets do no investigation.

      mugs.

    • Andrew says:

      02:19pm | 14/09/11

      Hi LC at 11:47am on 14-Sep-2011 above

      You have asserted that molten aluminium can turn from a silver colour at its melting point to a yellow/orange colour at higher temperatures.

      Please provide scientific evidence for this assertion.

      However, I already know that there is none.  Molten aluminium retains a silver colour no matter how hot it is.

      It is obvious to me that you are making things up as you go along.  You are intellectually dishonest.

      It is not the 9/11 truth movement that is made up of ‘conspiracy theorists’ because we are drawing logical and proven conclusions from the facts and evidence available.

      It is those such as yourself, who are obviously working feverishly to prevent the truth from coming out, who are the ‘conspiracy theorists’.  You support the conspiracy theory of the official story which is a pack of lies and you resort to lies yourself (such as that molten aluminium can be yellow/orange at higher temperatures) in order to prevent the official story from coming crashing down around you.

      What “most likely” happened is not important.  What is important is what actually happened.  It is manifestly obvious to me that you do not want anybody to know what actually happened.

    • LC says:

      05:02pm | 14/09/11

      @ Andrew

      Start here:
      http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/glowing.html
      http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

      But I guess those pages are part of the conspiracy too, right?

      And again you fail to address how despite:
      A. No-one noticing the rigging of explosives in the north and south towers and
      B. No discovery of copper wiring for the detonation charges and remnants of the charges themselves in the rubble
      That a controlled demolition is still possible.

    • Andrew says:

      10:23pm | 14/09/11

      Hi LC at 5:02pm on 14-Sep-2011

      I do not accept that aluminium turns yellow or orange at temperatures above its melting point of 660 degrees Celsius (1220 degrees Fahrenheit).  In any case, you have a serious problem with your assertion that aluminium melted as a result of the fires in the Twin Towers because expert testimony in the video below asserts that the fires in the Twin Towers would have burned at about 400 degrees Celsius (750 degrees Fahrenheit).  This is far below the melting point of aluminium of 660 degrees Celsius.

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows this expert testimony:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=54m34s

      Regarding your point marked “A” about concealment of the demolition devices, what do you think they are going to do – put signs in the lobbies of the Twin Towers prior to 11th September, 2001 saying, “Psst, there are explosive devices hidden in this building”?  They were concealed.  Much of the installation of demolition devices could have been performed through access to the elevator shafts throughout the buildings.  In addition, there is no reason why this work could not have been carried out between the hours of 10pm and 5am when there were very few people in the buildings.  There are many ways to conceal the installation of demolition devices.  Given the immense expertise involved in destroying the Twin Towers, which were both more than 400 metres in height, it is extremely naïve to believe otherwise.

      Regarding your point marked “B” about evidence of demolition in the debris from the collapsed buildings, there was no serious investigation of the debris piles from the collapses of the Twin Towers, buildings WTC 1 and WTC 2.  That debris was disposed of as quickly as possible and the debris was not analysed by investigators to the extent that it should have been given the seriousness of the events of 9/11.  Within minutes of the ‘attacks’ the media was parroting the idea that “Osama Bin Laden” did it, which was accepted as gospel by the entire United States of America and the world.  There was no investigation immediately after the attacks occurred to determine what actually happened.

    • LC says:

      11:09pm | 15/09/11

      @ Andrew

      A. Yeah…no. You’ve seen how the charges work, right? They have the primary explosive material, plus a charge and wire or a detonation cord to get things going.
      Problem: Burying them in the lift shafts, unless the explosives, charge and all are no thicker than a layer of cardboard, will cause the lift going past them to at best stop them from going off on the day by dislodging the det cord/detonator or at worst (if detonators were to be used), set the explosive off prematurely. And if that happened, the whole conspiracy would be blown right open (pun intended). The people behind it wouldn’t want that, would they?
      And yes, it’d have to be wired, because the repeaters in the towers were damaged making a wireless detonation impossible.
      Oh, and I’d imagine after the first attack on the twin towers in 1993, Security staff would’ve been there 24/7, as a precaution. They would’ve noticed SOMETHING was amiss, with people walking in overnight carrying suspicious packages and laying cable/detonation cord all over the place. Finally, you have the problem of the aircraft impact (which I’ll assume according to your version of events, was planned with by the government or at least the government knew it was going to happen). Now the impact and the resulting ignition of the jet fuel would set off at least some of the explosives prematurely and bugger everything up.

      B. To carry on from point A, the amount of detonation cord/cable required to bring about a controlled is extensive, and would remain present after the rubble has settled. And not a single person involved in the cleanup, whether it be emergency personnel or private contractors who cleaned up the leftovers, noticed? Really? That’s an EXTREMELY long bow to draw.
      You say “That debris was disposed of as quickly as possible and the debris was not analyzed by investigators” but if they found no evidence of any sort of controlled demolition while at ground zero, what reason is there to investigate it for one?

      The more you think about it, the more you look into it, the more you research it (not just on truther sites mind you), the more absurd the “WTC = controlled demolition” story gets.

      I’ve saved the best ‘til last. You first ask me:
      “You have asserted that molten aluminium can turn from a silver colour at its melting point to a yellow/orange colour at higher temperatures.

      Please provide scientific evidence for this assertion.”
      I feel obliged to do so, I mean why not? I had one, but I decided to look for at least one more, just to be sure. Less than a minute on Google later, and I find another, and provide those a source for my claim, After which you respond with:
      “I DO NOT ACCEPT that aluminium turns yellow or orange at temperatures above its melting point of 660 degrees Celsius (1220 degrees Fahrenheit).”
      A pretty piss-poor to play that one off, don’t you think? You could’ve just admitted you were wrong on that one. There’s no shame in that.

      Finally, I’d present a report from someone other than the NIST which says the fires burned at around 800 degrees Celsius (when aluminum starts to glow orange), and according to the graph provided on this page you linked causes steel to lose 70-80% of it’s strength, which is more than enough to cause major structural failure. But seeing as you threw the other evidence I gave you in my face like that, I don’t think I’ll bother. Why should I? It appears you have made your mind up, and will outright reject any evidence which does not support the conclusion you’ve reached.
      Then I had second thoughts, and decided I’d link it here anyway for the benefit of other people reading this, so here it is:
      http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

    • Aaron says:

      07:58am | 12/09/11

      “The exact details of how the demolitions were carried out have not been proven, but what is clear beyond all reasonable doubt is that they were not brought down simply as a consequence of plane impacts and fires.”

      You have lost ALL credibility with this statement. If there were proof beyond reasonable doubt, you wouldn’t be sitting there typing like a conspiracy theorist.

      Why did the buildings collapse? When the planes hit, they took out a lot of structure. When the fuel started burning, it severely weakened the structures (Look into the materials used by aircraft turbines, and you’ll see that normal construction steel holds up poorly at temperature). When you start talking about explosions: Have you ever heard steel snap, or break under load? It’s loud, and that’s with a very small test sample. Imagine if several structural girders were breaking, that could sound an awful lot like explosions.

      As for building 7, I have no hard evidence, nobody does. By I’d suggest that it’s entirely possible that debris from the first two towers hit the building, damaging it enough to bring it down, again, this is my theory, and I haven’t down any great deal of research.

      What it comes back to here with 9/11 for me, is that if there WERE some kind of conspiracy someone involved would have made a leak, somewhere. That hasn’t happened yet.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:15am | 12/09/11

      I watched a doco on SBS the other night and they attributed the implosion/collapse of WTC7 to a contained gas fire that had been burning for two days. So it fell on Sept 13 as a result of two days of burn from the inside out. To me, that sounded like a more credible reason than a planned demolition.

      If it was a planned demolition though, I would like to know how they got the exlposives in. Did they smuggle one charge at a time over the course of years? If it was a contained explosion, just imagine the volume of explosives required, how in the hell did they get it all in the buildings, choreographed and charged so it worked perfectly.

      I am with a few of the people above - they are not that smart or organised to have been able to pull that off and you are right - someone would have blabbed about it prior to now if it was the case.

    • EZ says:

      10:07am | 12/09/11

      @fairsfair - I watched a Conspiracy doco for kicks and they said that one set of lifts were down for ‘maintenance’ the day before, this explained how they got the explosives in.

    • Aaron says:

      10:13am | 12/09/11

      That sounds pretty reasonable. Especially since the whole area was blocked off for a couple of days.

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      10:15am | 12/09/11

      @fairsfair

      I think you will find that Building 7 actually fell at about 5:30 pm on the afternoon of the 11th. So the fire could not have been burning for a couple of days. It would have been interesting to have an analysis of why and how Building 7 was “pulled” (the term used by demolition experts when imploding buildings) as its owner (Silverberg) at the time stated. Furthermore, in an interview he said that he was told before hand it was going to collapse because it could not be saved and was being pulled; straight from the horses mouth. There is film of police telling people to leave the area because it was being “pulled”.

      Why don’t some of the people posting here actually watch some of the links recommended instead of inventing theories (and physical principles) of their own.

      P.S. There have been many people who have come forward with evidence of government involvement but they just cop ridicule and get offered tin foil hats, or ignored. There are many first responders that claim to have heard multiple explosions and other activities that make THEM suspicious and THEY describe the collapses as being like controlled demolitions; and THEY were there.

      There is so much evidence it is incredible that they are getting away with it. The lack of inquiry and healthy skepticism of government power by the unthinking masses and especially the fawning media provides them with their cover. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:21am | 12/09/11

      I’ve got the wrong building then. Whichever one it was, it fell on the 13th. I’ve just tried to quickly google it, but can’t determine which number. Perhaps it was just in the vicinity and didn’t have the WTC tag. Sorry about that.

      @IT - that is just mind blowing. Honestly. Wow.

    • Ghost says:

      11:24am | 12/09/11

      @Inconvenient Truth

      Why did they demolish building 7?

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      12:22pm | 12/09/11

      @ff and Ghost

      Sorry the name of the WTC owner was Larry Silverstein. The following is a quote from him that is recorded on video and not merely hearsay.

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

      A link to some (and by no means all) facts concerning WTC can be found here:

      http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      12:33pm | 12/09/11

      @Ghost and ff

      Here is a more detailed list of who was resident in WTC7 on 9/11 and some clues as to why WTC7 was “pulled”.

      http://wtc7.net/background.html

      Just as its owner Silverstein himself explains here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

      I recommend that you take a look at some of the other interviews on the same youtube link- especially the first responders’ eye witness testimonies.

    • AT says:

      12:47pm | 12/09/11

      I just love IT’s comment; “There is so much evidence it is incredible…”

      I’d put it differently; “There is so much idiocy it is incredible”.

      The WTC were of a unique design and obviously the only buildings to have had passenger jets carrying heavy fuel loads crash into them. Building 7 was of more commonplace design, but fire has never been allowed to burn for so long in such a building — never. Not once, not anywhere on earth.

      Given the complexity, the unique combination of a multitude of major factors and the million minor details and contributing elements that went un-witnessed, it is ridiculous to say that anyone can speak with any authority about the plausibility of what happened.

      The bleatings of this article’s author and other “truthers” are disrespectful, insulting and embarrassing. They’re a bunch of delusional wankers. Until they can prove that Building 7 and the WTC buildings COULDN’T collapse precisely as they did following the events of that day, they should stop shaming themselves and STFU.

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      01:51pm | 12/09/11

      @AT

      Nice use of emotion - but not very persuasive I’m afraid. Next time give reason a go.

    • Ghost says:

      02:39pm | 12/09/11

      @Inconvenient Truth (aka John, Andrew, Mick)

      You haven’t answered my question:

      Why did they demolish building 7?

      For what purpose would they need to demolish this building?  WHY did they want to do this to a perfectly good building?

    • AT says:

      02:48pm | 12/09/11

      Don’t get too far ahead of yourself there, IT, I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything — I’m simply asking a simple question of those simple folk who seem so very certain that three buildings were deliberately demolished.

      The reason I ask it is because you nutters simply proclaim the events that transpired were impossible and then launch your fanciful expositions. Again, you’re getting ahead of yourselves.

      I’ll ask the question again of you; can you prove that the WTC buildings, with their unique design and having planes smash into ‘em wouldn’t collapse precisely as and when they did? And Building 7, can you prove that after having a shitload of WTC fall on it and have an uncontained fire burn for an unprecedented length of time in such a building, it too wouldn’t collapse precisely as and when it did?

      Your mob has no trouble finding “evidence” supporting your elaborate “truth”. You should therefore have no problem presenting the proof I ask for. Then I’ll listen to your theories. Meantime, you’re merely trying to explain one unknown with another unknown — don’t expect anything other than hearty ridicule.

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      04:30pm | 12/09/11

      @AT

      Plenty of posters have provided you with the leads to the relevant information, If you don’t want to take your fingers out of your ears and stop going “nyah nyah nyah” that is your perogative.

      Like I wrote earlier there is so much evidence I am not going top bother typing it all out for you here. Believe what you want . . . oh, you already do. Cheers

      @Ghost

      I am none of those people that you list. But baseless accusations wouldn’t be new to you- i’m sure.

    • AT says:

      05:29pm | 12/09/11

      Aw, that’s pathetic, IT.

      “Plenty of posters” have NOT provided me with the leads to the relevant information. None even come close. I asked you to prove your initial premise that the building collapses could not have happened as they did. It’s important for your credibility to prove this as your entire commentary is predicated on this “fact”. Instead of providing a link or even deploying your formidable intellect and explaining it to us,  you revert to infantile posturing.

      Your pretensions of investigative oracle were pretty obvious from the start, Itey, but no rational person was taking you seriously. If you at least tried to back-up your comments, you and your ideas might have been shown some courtesy, but you’ve proven yourself to be just another incipient adolescent — sorry kid, but you’re not a credible character — you might have better luck convincing the squirts in the sandpit.

    • Andrew says:

      05:29pm | 12/09/11

      Hi AT

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that building WTC 1 and building WTC 2, also known as the Twin Towers, were both deliberately designed to withstand multiple impacts from large-scale aircraft without collapsing:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=52m54s

      Please note that the professionals providing their testimony here have outlined their qualifications, credentials and experience earlier in the film.

      Regarding your claim of damage to building WTC 7 from the collapse of the Twin Towers, I would appreciate it if you could please provide evidence of the extent of this damage.  In my opinion, the extent of this damage is minimal and played no part in the collapse of building WTC 7. 

      (Building WTC 7 was a 47 storey building in the World Trade Center complex which collapsed in less than 7 seconds at about 5:20pm on the afternoon of 11th September, 2001.)

    • Kate says:

      06:55pm | 12/09/11

      I tend to think the truth sits somewhere in the middle.  From what I have read, at the time the Twin Towers were constructed building laws required that a sky-scraper over a certain height had to be built with a capability to detonate.  So I tend to think that the Twin Towers were hit by the planes.  After a period of time when they couldn’t get the fires under control and the risk of the towers toppling onto surrounding buildings got to “likely” they detonated the buildings to collapes them straight down thus saving more property and more importantly lives.  Simple risk management tells you that you have to look at some kind of treatment when the risk gets to likely and the consequence is huge.

    • AT says:

      07:42pm | 12/09/11

      And Hi to you too Andy,

      As another poster pointed out somewhere else on this sprawling page, the WTC buildings DID withstand the impact of the planes. Two planes slammed into two identical buildings at slightly different heights and approaches etc, and both buildings remained standing — had there been no, or less fire, perhaps they’d still be standing today.

      As for providing you with evidence of extensive WTC 7 damage, sorry, I couldn’t be arsed. But I can tell you that I’ve heard or read of people with credentials the equal to or better than the bouncy talking heads in your link speaking from direct and immediate experience with WTC 7 and I tend to believe them before believing you because quite frankly, they’re roughly 1,000 times more plausible than you and your youTube movies.

      I do admire your proselytising efforts though — but if only you could dedicate you powers to the forces of good instead of silliness.

    • Mike says:

      08:45pm | 12/09/11

      So the fact somebody cares enough to be trying to get this information out on this comment section means they are full of it because if it were true everyone would know it.

      Try this.

      The top bit of the building either had the potential energy to fall and a) pulverise into dust the entire steel core structure and the concrete below it or b) fall at near free fall speed. It cannot do both.  Where has the extra energy come from.

      If you can’t understand that, you need to go back to school.

      These lame anecdotal excuses you lot are throwing up “Oh somebody would have leaked it”. Many have - GO LOOK - and they are laughed out of the room but geniuses like you who know it all. They are also threatened. A lot of people who credibly speak out about 9/11 end up dead. GO LOOK. But yeah, you aren’t going to find a 2 second answer unless you have some basic education and can realise that despite all of your denying and naysaying and labelling of people who simply CAN’T deny that 1+1=2, my above explanation ALONE is grounds for serious questioning of everything else.

    • Andrew says:

      09:11pm | 12/09/11

      Hi AT at 7:42pm above

      The following web-page provides graphic evidence for what is widely known by professional structural engineers, that no steel-structured skyscraper has EVER collapsed as a result of fire prior to 11th September, 2001.

      http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

      Yet three steel-structured buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, all allegedly collapsed catastrophically due to fire according to the official story!  Furthermore, in total, 267 (110 + 110 + 47) storeys collapsed in less than 31 (12 + 12 + 7) seconds which is a total rate of collapse of a minimum of 8.6 storeys per second.

      In short, the official story is nonsensical.  The only possible explanation for the collapses of these three buildings on 11th September, 2001 is controlled demolition involving explosives.

    • Andrew says:

      02:13am | 13/09/11

      Inconvienant truth, anothe rperson who doesnt have a clue what he is talking about, I dont suppose the term pull could refer to pulling the firefighters and people out of the area because it was to dangerous. The term pulled in demolition circles refers to hooking cables to a building and pulling it in a certain direction (so it falls the direction they want it to), pull does not mean bloe the builing up. Oh and andrew stop looking at the video given to you by sceptics, look at the proper video, building 7 takes a lot longer then 7 seconds to collapse, from the time you see the penthouse on the top of the building starts to fall in until the building finishes collapseing it takes at least 15 seconds proberly longer.

    • Cry in my Gin says:

      08:10am | 12/09/11

      Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Get over it.
      Can anyone enlighten us to the number of conspiracy theorists with drug/mental problems?

      “They came back when I stopped taking my medication.”

    • iansand says:

      11:26am | 12/09/11

      Shakespeare did not write those plays.  They were written by another man with the same name.

    • Matt says:

      12:53pm | 12/09/11

      iansand is right. You can tell because of the squibs. That, and the plays happen in freefall. Dead giveaway, that.

    • Mike says:

      01:45pm | 12/09/11

      One day when the rest of the world is moving forward after a full investigation confirms this was a government black op, and 95% of what those crazed conspiracy kooks said was true, you will look back and feel ashamed at how stupid you sounded with the things you said, dismissing without examining the evidence. I bet that of all the comments here that chastise those who actually still have critical thinking abilities left, perhaps 5% have actually examined the evidence linked to here in the article and comments. An absolute waste of time talking to people who have already politically neutralised themselves in world debate by being so inept and unbelievable ignorant to basic facts of physics and history that they will argue for something they actually know nothing about, while considering themselves informed. Unbelievable. Experts speak out about 9/11. 1962 Operation Northwoods declassified download it at Washington state university website; US government plans to hi jack plans, fly remote controlled passenger planes, kill it’s own citizens and blame the attacks on communist sympathisers and Cubans to start a war with Cuba. All chiefs of staff signed off on the plan, only Kennedy refused. Opinion that a government would not do this does not make the hard evidence go away. Building 7 fell at free fall speed symmetrically into it’s own foot print and was not hit by a plane. This is an impossibility without explosives. Go watch the video’s. It’s a controlled demolition, if you can’t see that, you are truly in a trance and / or mentally ill.

    • Dave says:

      02:34pm | 12/09/11

      OR the more likely alternative, Mike, is that one day, just like every other day, no-one can provide sufficient evidence that it was a conspiracy and so the the vast majority go on believing as they do now and the kooks, as you put it, continue spouting increasingly frustrating bold theories as to the how and why is was a conspiracy, also as they do now.

    • EZ says:

      03:01pm | 12/09/11

      @Dave, that’s what they said about the Peal Harbour incident, no the government would never let the Japanese attack their own, with their people in the way, and yet documents released about the incident show that they did indeed know the planes were coming, it’s why they removed all their brand new ships and just left the WWI derelects behind to be destroyed. I am not a conspiracy nutter, just playing devils advocate

    • Outraged says:

      03:55pm | 12/09/11

      I never knew why Literature-buffs like Shakespeare. He was the Aaron Spelling of his time! Churning out schlock that the masses ate up…

    • St. Michael says:

      04:05pm | 12/09/11

      @ EZ: I’m aware of the conspiracy theory that FDR let Pearl Harbour happen, but I’m yet to be advised which “documents released” “prove” that they sailed the carriers away and let the Japanese destroy WW1 antiques.  Especially given the US Navy raised 6 of those antiques and rebuilt them for active service.  And especially given Yamamoto *knew* the carriers had sailed, but decided to press the attack at Pearl anyway.

      Please, enlighten me.

      It was plain old Navy incompetence that allowed a force of airplanes to blast away half the US Navy at Pearl.  This is why Admiral Kimmel and Vice Admiral Libby went to their graves swearing FDR must have known: because had they acted competently, not one ship would have been sunk.  The prevailing view at the time was Japan could not execute two major naval operations at once, so with the Thailand invasion convoy known to be at sea, the Hawaii commanders had good reason to feel safe.

    • Andrew says:

      05:35pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Mike

      Thanks alot for telling it like it is.  I really appreciate it.

    • Johor says:

      08:10am | 12/09/11

      Aircraft have flown into tall modern buildings before in many parts of the world. In no case did the building collapse like the Twin Towers. They remained standing and only the floors impacted and those above and below were damaged.
      But all objections to claims that the collapse of the Twin Towers was deliberately engineered fall apart when the collapse of building 7 is considered. Why was that destroyed in a typical demolition fashion when not hit by an aircraft? Al Quaida could not be accused of that.
      I suspect that there was information held somewhere in the World Trade Centre buildings that could expose or compromise some powerful closet
      group or other. Creating a monstrous spectacle of its destruction would serve several of their goals at once. That would require removing Building 7 too. The fact that 3000 deaths would be incurred would carry little weight for those who organised this act.
      Eisenhower was a great carer soldier. He exuded integrity and he was singularly placed to issue the warning that he gave. If one piece of evidence is required to demonstrate the truth behind that warning it would be the performance of Cheney’s personal income generating business Halliburton and all the other private contractors hired to do jobs that would previously have been performed solely by military units.
      Sleepers awake! The truth is out there.

    • marley says:

      08:51am | 12/09/11

      Your argument is a bit along the lines of - I was driving and hit fence at 20 kph, and all I did is scratch the paint, so it’s just not possible that if I was driving at 40 kph and hit a brick wall, I’d smash in the front end.

      No building has ever had a direct hit from a 767 fully loaded with jet fuel and flying at 500 mph.  I wouldn’t expect a building hit by a Cessna to collapse, but a jetliner, yes, I reckon that’s entirely possible.

    • DocBud says:

      09:33am | 12/09/11

      “some powerful closet group”

      Now he/she is blaming the gays.

    • Jon says:

      10:05am | 12/09/11

      @Marley

      Please explain how jet fuel melts steel at open air temperature?
      we heard evidence by firefighters on the day that they saw “rivers of steel” run through the building, “like a foundry”.  Steel doesnt melt at open air temperature, unless thermite is used, it is the only known compound to melt steel at open air temperature.  Thermite is used in the demolition industry to melt steel points to allow controlled bring down of a building into its own footprint.  Exactly what we saw on 9/11 with three buildings.

      The fact that most of the steel was removed BEFORE investigators were allowed to examine it, says a lot also.  Why remove crucial evidence and destroy it before investigators could study it?

      I realise that you will probably call it nonsense, but I would ask you to take a moment and read http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

      Im not asking you to read the whole site, just that particular page.  You may decide to read more of course, but I just find it interesting that everyone on the day, other than the victims, profited in some way from this act.  Where profit is a variable, anything is possible.

    • Aitch B says:

      10:09am | 12/09/11

      @Johor

      I suspect you are ‘John’ and ‘Andrew’ also as the posts by all of you are remarkably similar. You obviously give no credence to the thousands of scientists, architects and engineers who have explained the collapse of the buildings.

      You say “Aircraft have flown into tall modern buildings before in many parts of the world.” Please enlighten us with some examples - other than a Cessna hitting a building in Milan. I’ve been around quite a long time and I honestly can’t recall a fully fuelled large passenger jet hitting a tall building prior to or since 2001.

    • Aaron says:

      10:53am | 12/09/11

      I can’t speak to the “Rivers of Steel” that these people said they’ve seen, but the steel would NOT melt at the temperatures generated by burning jet fuel. HOWEVER, steel does not need to melt to loose it’s strength. In fact, at the temperatures range of burning jet fuel the steel would have lost around 80-90% of its strength. Easily enough to cause a catastrophic failure.

      Steel breaking is loud, and sounds quite similar to an explosion. Is it not conceivable that the “explosions” were steel breaking?

    • Mike says:

      01:39pm | 12/09/11

      Remember everyone, COINTELPRO only needs to inject “reasonable doubt” into the public mind over these “conspiracy theories” for them to be dismissed, and sent back to lala land where jet fuel melts steel, where merely weakened, not melted steel, can simply disappear from reality. Fact - you EITHER have the energy to pulverise thousands of tons of concrete and steel OR you have the energy for the top of the building to fall to the ground at near free fall speed. You CANNOT have both. That’s high school physics folks. If you don’t know that, you are so poorly educated, that you will lose all your freedoms because mamma state is gonna take them away from you. Oops, too late. Wake up. 1500+ architects and engineers concur precisely with what I’m saying. Stop speculating and examine the evidence for yourself and stop treating this like a kindy debate. If what the conspiracy theorists allege is true then you’re in serious doo doo don’t you think? Better make SURE before dismissing it.

    • LC says:

      08:44pm | 12/09/11

      Mike,

      I could link you this article which thoroughly debunks your freefall theory. I could show you <a >this youtube clip</a> (seeing as you conspiracy theorists seem to love these) which shows the same.

      But I’m sure that you’ll just spout some rubbish along the lines of “the guy is a government shill”, “he’s being paid to say that” or “those pictures/that video are (is) quite obviously edited”.

      Why would you care? You’ve made your mind up. There’s no changing it, and there’s no stopping you trying to get others to see the “light”.

      And I assure you, even if we have another investigation into 9/11, unless the results fell in line with your ideas you will not stop what you’re doing.

    • Andrew says:

      01:39am | 13/09/11

      the rivers of steel were aluminium, mainly from the plane which melts at a lot lower temperature, Noone ever said that the steel melted, what they said was that it was weakened.

    • P. Darvio says:

      08:14am | 12/09/11

      Religion caused 911 - that is a fact - no need for conspiracy theories. Religion is totally and wholly responsible.

    • the apologist says:

      08:50am | 12/09/11

      No, the people who did it are responsible.

    • Aaron says:

      09:00am | 12/09/11

      These types of comments are never helpful and are generally (though not always) generated by someone who has been, in some way, hurt by a religion. I’d dare say religion had very little to do with it. Sure, it makes a nice excuse, but at it’s core I think that these acts are not done “To please God” they’re done as a power struggle, and they use “God” to justify their position to their would-be followers.

      If we take religion out of the equation, nothing would change.

    • Warren says:

      08:25am | 12/09/11

      This article strikes me as being 911 “truthiness”.

    • Jason Todd says:

      10:20pm | 12/09/11

      Warren - Great comment. Or the greatest comment?

    • BelleStar says:

      08:26am | 12/09/11

      Well said Aaron, Macca, KH, Marley & Jim. Nothing much more for to add except to say you have to admire somebody who puts their name to this so called truther crap. In a kinder gentler time he and most of his ilk would have been sitting somewhere quietly, fully medicated and being cared for by nurses. Maybe it is time for him to take up interpretive dance and mime - this much misunderstanding clearly makes him an artist.

    • DocBud says:

      09:37am | 12/09/11

      Get up from the computer, maintain eye contact at all times, don’t turn your back, he might have something sharp, turn off the computer at the wall and call the military industrial complex, they’ll know what to do, god bless them.

    • Mick says:

      01:35pm | 12/09/11

      Your comment just goes to prove how far we have come from a free society. You know Soviet Russia also referred to people who questioned and distrusted government as “conspiracy theorists” and called them “mentally ill” and actually did put them away in mental hospitals. So congratulations you are allied with a historically horrendous ideology. You’re also incapable of high school grade physics. The mass of the top of the twin towers did not have enough potential energy to fall at free fall speed AND also pulverise the below floors *symmetrically*. It is either or, not both. Where did the extra energy come from genius? You’re all victims of the psyop. And the ironic part is that you are the ones who are suffering so severely from cognitive dissonance you are actually entranced in an alternate reality where the laws of physics are suspended and these fictional laws now constitute actual physics. Whose mentally ill hey bud? From where I’m sitting it’s you. But don’t worry, unlike you I don’t want to force medicate you OR lock you away. I’m trying to educate enough people peacefully so that peer pressure will unlock your mind, since that seems to be it’s primary driver, not logic, truth, or science.

    • Nick says:

      08:32am | 12/09/11

      It’s nice that your anthropology degree enlightened you with an engineering background that trumps my Sydney University professor, but within the first few weeks of studying an engineering degree, our professor showed the entire class his research on the World Trade Centre’s collapse, and then explained to us how it happened. He then went on to show us all the hilarious emails from “truthers” that he received, his most common reply was simply “gravity”.

      The problem with this “movement” is that people watch a youtube video or that “loose change” movie and just take the message as facts. The way that you SHOULD go about learning the truth is hearing both sides of the story, not just the word of a conspiracy theorist who believe the internet has given them an unlimited irrefutable pool of knowledge.

    • Bob says:

      03:49pm | 12/09/11

      These truthers are the same idiots that believe that during the Falklands War, the Argentinians sunk HMS Invincible, a British carrier with Journalists and over a thousand men and the British hid the truth by pretending that the carrier continued to fight the war. Then after the war they painted the carriers name on a new ship and no-one noticed the difference. More grass smoking Green candidates in my opinion.

    • acotrel says:

      08:36am | 12/09/11

      There might actually be something in this ‘truth’ stuff ?  The 21st century got off to a flying start with 9/11 .  We now have the GFC and Wikileaks.  With all that’s wrong in the world, I cannot understand why I feel strangely optimistic !

    • Jem says:

      08:56am | 12/09/11

      To quote the wonderful Terry Pratchett

      “The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head”

      If there was conclusive evidence, action would have been taken.  This is the nation of Watergate.  Someone would have done something.  Hell, Wikileaks would have something.

      As others have said, an event that requires this level of planning carried out by the same group of people who are still bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq?  And no one has talked ever.  Really?

      I’ve read plenty of things that state that the fall of the towers conforms with what you would expect from the damage they took, including building 7.  I read it on the internet.  I read your ‘truth’ on the internet as well.  Just because a few of you believe it, doesn’t make it true.  A whole lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, and were more than happy to deal with anyone who disagreed with them.

      Proof is more than an opinion on the internet.  Prove your truth with more than just ‘some guy with a degree agrees with me’.  Some guy with a degree disagrees with you as well.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      10:40am | 12/09/11

      This is the nation of Bradly Manning and Gitmo - Watergate happened in the 70’s.

    • SimpleSimon says:

      09:13am | 12/09/11

      Wow.. I’m not easily offended (for example, I’m a bit of a fan of Jim Jefferies) but this article actually offends me. Maybe it’s too early in the morning and I haven’t had enough coffee, but the disrespect these sorts of articles afford the victims of these attacks is mind boggling and sickening.

      To say you “thruthers” are people who stand up and say two plus two equals four, you’re trying bloody hard to convince the rest of us that it equals seven (maybe that second two was secretly smuggling another 3 under it’s burqua by order of the US government…)

      http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

      A couple of examples of why you’re an idiot. That may be a bit harsh, but this boils my blood. Your lack of understanding of structural engineering does not equate to evidence of anything, and this sort of tripe demonstrates an alarming level of disrespect for the threats the West faces from the fringe-dwellers in the East. Stop trying to form misinformed alternate-realities to make up for the fact that you don’t understand the science.

    • Andrew says:

      09:03pm | 12/09/11

      Hi SimpleSimon

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is the section which presents testimony from qualified engineers and other qualified professionals who all agree that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, were demolished using controlled demolition:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h40m53s

      Contrary to your assertion that this article is disrespectful to the victims of 9/11, you can see the testimony of family members of victims of 9/11 who do not believe the official story at the 2h:12m:55s mark of this video and who are demanding answers.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:13pm | 12/09/11

      Notice how Andrew just keeps on repeating himself when people confront him with stuff he can’t answer?

      In particular, he hasn’t once tried to take on the debunking websites.  Interesting, no?

    • Jas says:

      04:06pm | 14/09/11

      @ st michael..

      the debunking websites pretty much debunk themselves..
      http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

      but, speaking off stuff you cant answer.. heres one for you.

      provide a link with an official explanation of how building 7 was able to fall at freefall speed through the path of most resistance.

      heres a tip, you wont be able to, so dont bother.

      that is why, all these people @  ae911truth.org

      are simply asking for an independent, transparent investigation with subpoena power, for once and for all, to address the reasonable questions, of many credible people..  in fact, a majority of the worlds population, have no faith in the official version of events.

      but if youd simply prefer to believe george bush, who said that god told him to invade iraq..  lol, its true, ask him! - if youd rather believe him, because he simply pointed in osamas direction and said “yeah thats him man, he did it because he hates our freedoms” well then..  you believers in the official coincidence theory, really are gorgeous.

    • St. Michael says:

      06:08pm | 14/09/11

      @ Jas:

      “provide a link with an official explanation of how building 7 was able to fall at freefall speed through the path of most resistance.”

      I don’t have to.  Onus of proof’s on you because you’re the one wearing the tinfoil hat.  Most people in the world know them.

      (The rest of your reply is ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to authority, which you’ve got a habit of doing, so I thought I’d give you another taste of it just to see how you like it being applied to your queries.)

    • Jas says:

      07:24pm | 14/09/11

      @ st michael..

      what.. you couldnt find one link? why am i not surprised. and to top it off, youre seeing imaginary straw men too. if you have really good drugs, its polite to share.

      as for the burden of proof, its all yours sunshine.

      http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/BurdenofProof.pdf

      ive made no claims, just pointed at holes in the official fairy tale.

      as far as ad hominem attacks? yes, well, it is tiresome arguing with knuckleheads like yourself, and i admit i dont suffer fools easily. sue me.

      you could still end all this now though, ill give you one more chance to find that link..

    • St. Michael says:

      11:12pm | 14/09/11

      Now you’re getting abusive, darling.  Doesn’t augur well for your theories or your objectivity.  It’s also why most people don’t take you seriously.  As for good drugs, I wouldn’t trust you to know the difference since you’ve apparently been dropping a lot of LSD lately.

      Just because a truther pdf says I have the burden of proof doesn’t make it so.  You might want to think about that a while.  Where is the criminal charge? Are you or are you not suggesting a criminal act by persons or persons intending to cover up a salient fact about 9/11? If so, you are accusing a person of a crime.  The onus of proof is yours.

      The court of public opinion is so named because it isn’t a court at all.  That’s why we have real courts to decide these things.

      I expect this will go a little over your head since you don’t seem to understand the concept of honest and dishonest debating tactics, but let’s press on.

      Websites, then: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

      (Insert allegation that the writer was part of a conspiracy here.)

      Now, let’s recall your (somewhat ineloquent) challenge:

      “provide a link with an official explanation of how building 7 was able to fall at freefall speed through the path of most resistance.”

      There isn’t one.  Because WTC 7 didn’t fall at free fall speed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&eurl=http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

      It’s 13 seconds.  Not 6.5 seconds.

      Would you like to play again?
      No?

    • Yves Adele Harlow says:

      09:13am | 12/09/11

      I guess you know they shot JFK as well?

    • iansand says:

      09:17am | 12/09/11

      The good news is that, now human artefacts have been photographed on the Moon, there are a lot of other conspiracy theorists ripe for recruitment to a new campaign.

    • kyzz says:

      10:17am | 12/09/11

      didn’t you see the latest transformers movie? It’s not human debris it’s from the autobots.

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      01:20pm | 12/09/11

      @iansand

      That’s right lump all people together because they don’t believe everything that the authorities tell them.

      There is more evidence of a False Flag operation than there is of some half trained ‘islamists’ performing incredible aeronautic tricks in jet aircraft (The maneuver to hit the Pentagon has been described as breathtaking by highly experienced pilots).

      I believe that they landed on the moon in 69. I don’t believe in the lone gunman theory. I do believe Elvis is dead. And I take the scientists at their word on ACC. But, I don’t believe the official line on 9/11. So what box do I fit in?

    • Ghost says:

      03:47pm | 12/09/11

      @IT

      Please provide links to these quotes by highly experienced pilots.

    • Inconvenient Truth says:

      04:44pm | 12/09/11

      @Ghost

      Here is a quote for you from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

      “So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C’mon… sounds like a bad B movie… Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

      My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these “Conspiracy theorists”. They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C’mon…”

      Here is a link to a list of their members (and experience levels):

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

      And here is a link to their credentials:

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/credandexper.html

      I bet you don’t hit the links.

    • LC says:

      12:38pm | 19/09/11

      @ IC

      Just because there is no video of it does not mean anything.  They found bits of a 757 all over the place while cleaning up (and if you dig deeper than youtube, they even have pictures of the fight victim’s bodies, it’s some pretty nasty stuff) and over 100 witnesses who claim to see a jet flying extremely low over the freeway towards the Pentagon.

      Oh wait, those aircraft bits were clearly trucked in quickly after a missile hit the Pentagon, and the witnesses were quite obviously paid by the government to say that.

      Sorry, forgot all about those little technicalities. Carry on. smile

    • CaptainCrunch says:

      09:19am | 12/09/11

      My problem with Truthers is that they cannot explain how this secret government conspiracy could do all this to start a war for oil, but could not plant WMB’s in Iraq to justify the invasion. The US couldn’t even get people out of New Orleans but you want me to believe that they blew up half of lower Manhattan and have kept the conspiracy hidden from everyone but Truthers.

      Fair dinkum, you do not base any of this on evidence. I bet you have a poster in your bedroom saying “I Want To Believe”

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:35pm | 12/09/11

      They didn’t care about the people in New Orleans- if they did then they could. I mean, they were able to put people on the Moon in 1969. When they want to they can.

    • Old Man Emu says:

      09:21am | 12/09/11

      Overture, curtains, lights. This is it, we’ll hit the heights. And, oh, what heights we’ll hit. On with the show, this is it.

      This article was brought to you by Loony Tunes.

    • Old Man Emu says:

      12:53pm | 12/09/11

      Having now read of all the attached articles, I can safely conclude that you are a person of lesser intelligence than the average, Jas. A simple understanding of physics and chemistry can answer every questions raised by the propaganda piece. You might even pick up some basics on the mechanics of fire from watching Backdraft, which would lead you to severly question most of the arguements in the booklet.

      It also can’t make up its mind when the explosions took place. Some parts claim it was at the time the buildings went down, others that it was the time the planes hit (otherwise the testimonials are useless).  An explosives job like that takes, from experience, weeks of back work to do and would involve the removal of several walls, which apparently went unnoticed by the 30000 people working in the three buildings.

      Most tellingly, it happily ignores Al Qaida’s involvement altogether. As though this outlaw terrorist group that had waged war on the US for 20 years had suddenly merged with them in one great plot.

      The rest of your arguement seems to be that more people believe it, therefore it must be true. All this shows is a collective lack of intelligence.

      It is interesting to note, however, that most 9-11 Truthers are also vocally ardent supports of the man-made global warming hoax that they have also fallen for with a complete disregard for logic.

    • Jas says:

      05:36pm | 12/09/11

      @ Old bird brain

      you’re gorgeous!

    • Andrew says:

      08:53pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Old Man Emu at 12:53pm above

      Contrary to your generalisation in the last paragraph of your post, I have been actively involved in exposing the fraud of carbon dioxide-driven climate change for the last 3.5 years.

    • ronny jonny says:

      09:34am | 12/09/11

      Hereward, you sir, are an idiot.
      The theory that all this is about cheap oil is ridiculous. Iraqi oil is currently the most expensive in the world to produce. It would have been more cost effective to just buy the whole cesspit of a country. Pay off Saddam for access, thats how you get cheap oil.
      Sometimes, the truth is not “out there”, it’s right in front of your face

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      10:14am | 12/09/11

      Ronny, you are correct about the oil, but naive in your understanding of geo-politics. This is more about maintaining artificial scarcity than access to resources. Oil was getting too cheap, Iraq was over-producing. Do you get it?

    • ronny jonny says:

      11:18am | 12/09/11

      Wow, you have a conspiracy thoery for everything! Way cool!! Why would you drive up the price of a commodity the majority of which is owned by your enemies? Oh yeah, to push up Halliburton share prices…
      This is fun!

    • Jon says:

      09:46am | 12/09/11

      what I really find amazing by the majority of the comments here who attack this article is that people obviously don’t have the ability to research.  RESEARCH! 

      steel cannot melt at open air temperature!  that is a proven fact, no amount of plane fuel could have caused the steel to melt.  Firefighters on the day described “lava’s of steel, like a foundry”  airplane fuel cannot melt steel, especially at open air temperature.

      those who are saying that how could this be kept secret for so long given the apparent mass this kind of operation would have involved. 

      we are kidding here, right?  the US has agencies that until quite recently, even the whitehouse had no idea were established.

      Bill Clinton admitted himself that there is a shadow government operating in the US.  What you see on the top is not necessarily all there is to see.

      There is so much evidence to 9/11 being an “inside job” that for anyone to simply dismiss it based on the fact that they cannot do research, they cannot believe it because the mainstream is telling us different, or the fact that they believe that would be the case because no government would do that to its own… then those individuals need to really open their eyes and wake up.

      Credible professionals in the business, structural engineers, architects, demolition engineers, pilots, physics professors and the list goes on, have all questioned the official story.

      Research people, you may just find that, yes, some of these things need answers other than what the mainstream have told us. 

      why are some of the hijackers running around freely in the middle east for example, what were two of the hijackers flying for saudi airlines and never stepped foot into the US, but the FBI still has them as terrorists who flew planes into the towers on that fateful day? Even though those people are alive today still?

      too many questions and no answers.  As everything usually does, eventually the truth will come out.

    • Mark G says:

      10:44am | 12/09/11

      Research!!! you mean seaching the internet for false facts about 9/11. You mean finding videos and the small group of apparent experts that support your arguement despite the thousands of mainstream experts that dont. Lawyers on important cases use the same trick. You keep looking for experts until you find on that agree that your client was insane to get them off murder charges.

      Why are some of the hihackers still alive?? even if that is true and some of them are still alive and in the Middle east. So what?? The FBI made and error in their investigation. On initial investigation they though they were on the planes. They were wrong. That doesn’t automatically mean that your conspiricy is therefore accurate.

      We will never have all the exact fact of 9/11. It was an attack not a carefully managed stage show. I would be more suspecious if the US government had perfect answers to every question.

    • Albert says:

      10:51am | 12/09/11

      Carpets… wooden desks.. plastic chairs.. computer terminals…  cubicle dividers…paper…office doors… internal plaster walls… all these things burn fairly well at room temperature.
      All of them burn even better when surrounded by a room full of other things that are furiously burning…
      And now, you dont have open-air temperatures. You have closed-in furnace temperatures.. like the red coals in the middle of an open fire outdoors.
      This simple wood fire gets more than hot enough to melt stubbies & tinnies thrown into it. Often they’re started by a capful of diesel, too… diesel cant melt steel.
      But the fire it starts can get more than hot enough to critically weaken, if not actually melt, steel.

      Physics… it doesn’t care what website you read.

    • Matt says:

      01:03pm | 12/09/11

      The 9/11 “truth movement” is nothing more than an Internet circle-jerk. Self-referential information with only a tenuous grasp of reality that is then used as proof that the whole thing was a conspiracy.

      Grow up, or get some new lines. The “melting steel” angle has been done to death.

    • Jason Todd says:

      10:48pm | 12/09/11

      So your testimony is that the firefighters present on that day are so precise, that they can look at a river of molten metal and instantly determine that that metal was steel?
      These men need a job in an analytical laboratory. I’d kill to be able to determine things accurately like that.

      I don’t doubt that there was a river of molten something. It could have been anything - Aluminium for example. Just because the firefighters THOUGHT that it was molten steel, doesn’t mean that it is. I agree that the temperatures may not have been able to melt steel, but having read the research, I am convinced that it could have weakened the steel enough to precipitate the collapse.

      As for your last point - The highjackers used common names and multiple aliases. To the best of my knowledge, all the cases of them being found running around in the middle east alive, have been cases of mistaken identity. If you have evidence to the contrary, I suggest you bring it forward.

    • Andrew says:

      02:22am | 13/09/11

      Jon, go and do some prope rresearch yourself, never at any stage does the official ,report say the steel was melted, but it was weakened which cause the crossbeams to partially collapse pulling the outer structure to fold in. The rivers of molten steel has been shown by many experts to be aluminium not steel.

    • Andrew says:

      09:48am | 12/09/11

      Building WTC 7 in the World Trade Center complex in New York is the third building which collapsed on 11th September, 2001, the other two being WTC 1 and WTC 2 - the Twin Towers.  Building WTC 7 was a 47 storey building that was not hit by a plane and it collapsed in less than 7 seconds at approximately 5:20pm on the afternoon of 11th September, 2001.

      The evidence in the following video titled “Solving the Mystery of WTC 7”, released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, proves that building WTC 7 was demolished using explosives.  The evidence in this video is very blatant and absolutely impossible to refute.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

      This highly engrossing video above is an abridged version of the following film titled “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and is more than two hours in length.  It is not possible to understand what happened on 11th September, 2001 without considering the mountain of evidence in this film which proves the use of controlled demolition on 11th September, 2001 beyond any doubt.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=11m29s

      This link is set to cause the film to begin at the 11 minute 29 second mark at which one expert begins his testimony.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:20am | 12/09/11

      Riiiiight.  So the supersecret and supercompetent military-industrial complex that manages to bring down WTC 1 and WTC 2 at the same time as planes fly into them somehow screws up and doesn’t bother with another controlled demolition until, what, 8-9 hours later?

    • Ellis Wyatt says:

      09:51am | 12/09/11

      This article is an insult to the memory of the people who were murdered by al-Qa’ida a decade ago.  Unfortunately no degree of civic audit (take some time to read the 9/11 Commission Report) will ever satisfy conspiracy theorists like the so-called ‘truthers.’

    • trevor says:

      01:07pm | 12/09/11

      The search for the truth will never offend anyone, regardless of how dead they are. I would think that desperately holding onto an obviously fake or elaborated cover story would be more of an insult wouldn’t you Ellis?

    • Matt says:

      06:06pm | 12/09/11

      @Elllis

      How dare you invoke the memories of the fallen!

      The victims families started this so called “Truth Movement”. THEY are asking the questions and demanding a new investigation.

      Youtube 9/11: Press For Truth… A documentary THEY made.

      Get a clue.

    • Andrew says:

      08:43pm | 12/09/11

      Ellis

      The 9/11 Commission Report was a joke.  Philip Zelikow, who was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, wrote the outline for the commission before it even commenced.

      You can see what Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby was killed in the lobby of the North Tower (WTC 1), thinks about the 9/11 Commission in the following video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkoZjvQi8ms

    • Tahlia says:

      01:41am | 14/09/11

      Don’t terrorist organisations always take the credit when they pull off a spectacular attack like 9/11. To this day no-one has officially taken credit for 9/11, and the man that got blamed for it from day 1, Osama Bin Laden, publicly denied. This is significant, because terror organisations always take credit, otherwise why bother beinga terrorist group? Also, I have read the 9/11 report. Convincing if that is all you bother to read about 9/11. Check this site out:
      http://patriotsquestion911.com
      If what these people say doesn’t make you do some futher research into 9/11 (other than reading the government sponsored propaganda booklet) I don’t know what will.

    • Ellis Wyatt says:

      11:35am | 14/09/11

      @Tahlia
      al-Qa’ida often did not claim responsibility for their terrorist acts.  As an apocalyptic terrorist group they really didn’t have ‘demands’ that any sane person could take seriously; e.g. the return of ‘al-Andalus’ (Spain) to Islamic tutelage.  Maybe they also prefer to keep the ‘infidels’ guessing, rather than invite a visit from a Predator drone.

      @ThePunch
      The wonderful thing about the internet is that when a ‘truther’ article like this one is posted, ‘truthers’ from all over the world will swarm it.  Any future contributions to The Punch about ‘the Bildebergers’ or the ‘Babylonian Brotherhood’ theory about the world being secretly run by a cabal of reptilian shape-shifters would have a similar effect.  Perhaps it is a case of too much Kool-Aid and not enough tinfoil.

    • Jas says:

      04:27pm | 14/09/11

      please ellis..
      civic audit… it was a government handled whitewash, where the commissioners were told “not to cross the line” and were not allowed to see certain evidence or question certain witnesses. might be good enough for you, but not for folk with an ounce of cognitive ability.

      can you show me the part in the 911 comission report that explains how building 7 fell at freefall speed through the path of most resistance?

      no you cant, because they didnt even address it. maybe thats why the commissioners themselves dont even trust what they wrote.

      lol - http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html

      and news just in….

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/us-sept11-graham-idUSTRE78B6DH20110912

      another reason - as if more were needed, why a proper investigation is warranted.

      its not the truthers who have theories..  until its proven that 19 hijackers actually did cause all that destruction in a court of law, all you have is a theory. all the truthers are doing, is showing that, based on science, logic, common sense,  the official theory, can not be true.

      really… i have a hard time believing anyone who is stupid enough to think that this isnt an explosion,

      http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/tower-explosions.htm

      would even be smart enough to know when theyre being insulted.
      perhaps you can compare people who are simply asking for a proper investigation into the events of 911 with people who advocate the presence of reptilian shape shifters again to help make your ever so lame point.

    • Andrew says:

      05:48am | 15/09/11

      Hi Ellis

      Are you more interested in truth or trying to win an argument?

    • Mark G says:

      09:51am | 12/09/11

      I’m not going to get into the argument about conspiracies on 9/11 because my life is too short and other responders have pretty adequately argued the alternative points. Let me just say this to all the conspiracy nuts out there.

      1. Real life is not a Hollywood movie. Get over it!!!! There is not always some plot twist waiting to play out. There are no ultra secret government groups operating covertly around the world. Governments are not that competent for the most part and struggle to keep even the most important info secret. Just look at wikileaks. The reality is that the problem with a secret organisation is simple. You have to have human running it.

      2. Just because it makes logical sense in your mind and you can connect random dots, DOESNT MAKE IT TRUE!!! You can rationalise anything if you distort evidence to meet your agenda. That’s how conspiracy theories work. They selectively take distorted evidence to support a conclusion conveniently leaving our important elements of investigations. The industrial military complex has certainly benefited from 9/11 but that doesn’t mean that they were responsible for it. Benefit does not equal guilt. Imagine the legal system if we could prosecute people for murder simply because they benefited from the death.

    • thomasr says:

      10:08am | 12/09/11

      Tin hats prevent conspiracies- FACT.

      This is drivel.

    • Lyndon says:

      10:20am | 12/09/11

      Interesting alternate point of view! Good reading the comments as well, lots of passionate argument.

    • SimonP says:

      10:24am | 12/09/11

      “Future generations will remember us.”

      Yes, as paranoid nutters. Just as present generations regard you.

      There really are some astonishingly bonkers assertions in this article. One of the best is: “They also found iron micro-spheres in the dust, an indicator of intense heat way beyond that attained by office fires.”

      A passenger jet collided with a building at a very high speed. Hardly an “office fire”, is it?

      Insane.

    • Mark G says:

      10:24am | 12/09/11

      Oh and yeah,

      3. 99% of the time the simplest explanation is the accurate one. That is a policing and intelligence saying and it hold a very strong truth. It is what guides investigations. For example when a child disappears from an abusive family the first people you investigate is the abusive family. There was a conspiracy on 9/11 and it was a terrorist conspiracy. Sorry if that isn’t sexy enough for you conspiracy nuts and doesn’t meet the demands of your Hollywood inspired fantasies but you will just have to get over it.

    • Andrew says:

      10:54am | 12/09/11

      The simplest and proven explanation is that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, were demolished in a controlled manner using explosives.

      On the 11th September, 2001, three buildings in the World Trade Center complex in New York city collapsed, which were buildings WTC 1 and WTC 2, also known as the Twin Towers, and building WTC 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers building.
       
      The Twin Towers collapsed in less than 12 seconds each in the morning of the 11th September, 2001.  Building WTC 7 was a 47 storey building that collapsed in less than 7 seconds at approximately 5:20pm in the afternoon on the very same day.  This building was not hit by any plane.

      In total, 267 storeys collapsed in less than 31 seconds.  This is a total rate of collapse of a minimum of 8.6 storeys per second.  Without the use of controlled demolition involving explosives, this is physically impossible.

    • Mark G says:

      11:32am | 12/09/11

      “The simplest and proven explanation is that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, were demolished in a controlled manner using explosives.”

      Are you serious!!!! you think that a secret covert government organisation (that is full of human beings willing to kill thousands of people for cheaper oil and military contracts) planting explosives on a large number of floors in three highly occupied (by civilians not part of the conspiracy) buildings without being detected by anyone is the simple explanation. You couldn’t just put the explosives in the basement to make the building do what it did. Have you seen what they do to buildings that are imploded? They first gut them and then bore holes into the support structures to lay the explosives. Are you suggesting that the simple explanation is that they did the work without a single office worker getting suspicious?? Oh yeah that secret organisation would have to have suicide operatives to fly the planes into the buildings as well. Kind of a point missed in the conspiracy theory. The planes did crash into the towers. Even if it was a controlled demolition that brought it down, you still have to accept that someone still had to fly the aircraft into the building. Who was that?? and how is there motivation a simple explanation??

    • Mark G says:

      11:52am | 12/09/11

      “In total, 267 storeys collapsed in less than 31 seconds.  This is a total rate of collapse of a minimum of 8.6 storeys per second.  Without the use of controlled demolition involving explosives, this is physically impossible.”

      In your wonderful convenient maths, did you ever consider the idea that Maybe, just maybe, more than one floor was collapsing at once under the pressure exerted by the floors above. That some floors below started to collapse before the one above had completely finished or even started to collapse?? The extra force on the floors below is exerted beyond their breaking point before they actually collapse as the supports above give way. The force on the floor below was accumulating faster than they were actually collapsing and therefore multiple floors collapsed at relatively the same time. By the way, this effect would be less likely to have been an implosion because the collapse would have been slower. It would also be something that most demolition experts would never have experienced because no building as large as the trade centres has ever been imploded.

    • fairsfair says:

      12:30pm | 12/09/11

      3.99% of the time is not a huge statistic.

    • Tom Witheweather says:

      01:23pm | 12/09/11

      Well then let’s just rest on our laurels and trust that 1% never happens. Whether you believe 911 was an inside job or not, the truth is we have become too trusting in the powers that be. We have to think for ourselves, stop being sheep, and question authority. This is the only way we can be sure the wool isn’t being pulled over our eyes. How about that? Two sheep references!

    • Mark G says:

      02:07pm | 12/09/11

      “We have to think for ourselves, stop being sheep, and question authority”

      Why am I a sheep because I don’t believe conspiracy theories?? Just because I don’t feel the need to constantly accuse all authority figures of committing the holocaust at the drop of a hat doesn’t mean that I don’t question authority when it is clear that such things as corruption are occurring. You can question authority without believing in any old random theory about how demonic authority is. Given the way that people are sucked into conspiracy theories I would suggest that they are more the sheep than anyone else. I have to say it. I am thinking for myself!!! and I think that most of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are completely bogus not to mention poorly thought out.

    • Zebrasdonthavestripes says:

      03:56pm | 12/09/11

      @ Andrew…..I think you need a good strong cup of tea, a Bex and a lie down and the nice men in the white coats will be here soon to collect you…....

    • Jason Todd says:

      11:29pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, can you relay where you obtained the figure for less than 12 seconds each? The videos that I have seen, and the most conservative estimates in studies place the time of collapse at 15ish seconds for the South Tower and 20+ for the North tower. This is much slower than you seem to be reporting.

    • Andrew says:

      02:30am | 13/09/11

      Jason Todd 100% correct, both towers took a lot longer the 12 seconds to collapse, and #7 a lot longer then 7 seconds, the trouble is he only watches the videos shown by other sceptics which have been cut to support there theories, Andrew go have a look at the proper video of the collapse. And also Jason he doesnt seem to realise that the fact that he says they took 12 seconds to fall, discredits his theory of a controlled explosion, because freefall (which would be created by a controlled explosion) would onlt take a faction over 9 seconds.

    • Kika says:

      10:39am | 12/09/11

      I am a ‘truther’ I suppose, but more of the sense that they knew that something big was going to happen. They had intelligence to say that planes would be used. They were watching Mohammad Atta for a long time, but failed to stop him and his mates hijacking the planes. In other words, they had good intelligence, but failed to react to it appropriately.

      Granted the terrorists did something brand new. But that’s what terrorists do. They find a hole in our security and use it against us. 

      The world around us has changed for sure. I mean now you can’t even take water with you onto a plane. Is that changing? I managed to get through security last week with a bottle. But I remember when travelling overseas we had to dehydrate on the planes just because some idiots used that as a hole to try to blow us all up. What’s next?

    • BernardK says:

      10:40am | 12/09/11

      Building 7 was demolished. Controlled. Pulled down by hydraulic cables to bring it down into a controlled area after heavily structurally damaged by 1300 feet for WTC tower debris falling onto it. Check out
      http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

      However, regardless of the cause, the effect has been a degradation of civil rights and an a massive increase in potential unfettered powers government agencies which we should be concerned about.

    • LC says:

      04:52pm | 15/09/11

      They “pulled” building 4 to 6 not 7.

      When Silverstein was talking about “pulling” building 7 he meant pulling the firefighters OUT of the building and letting it fall over, because it was considered unsalvageable and it’s collapse inevitable. They did it in time, there was no casualties.

      Can’t help but to agree with that second paragraph though.

    • RyaN says:

      10:41am | 12/09/11

      Yawn, and it wasn’t just a bunch of pissed off Muslims?
      Occams Razor says you are a loony.

    • neil says:

      10:49am | 12/09/11

      It’s not even worth engaging in conversation with conspiracy theory nutters, no amount of logic can make them see how stupid they are. It’s like trying to talk sense to people who have invisible friends.

    • Invisible Friend says:

      11:42am | 12/09/11

      You’re quite right, Neil, if you want to talk to sense do it to me, not my visible friend, he’s not very bright and always accusing me of doing things that he’s done.

    • bennie says:

      03:09pm | 12/09/11

      Hmmm, I’m stupid because I don’t blindly accept what the governments and media tell me…. interesting…

    • Dan says:

      10:53am | 12/09/11

      ” There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
      We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
      But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

      I’m more distrustful of the USA now than I was 10 years ago.

      Maybe Wikileaks will produce the smoking gun.

    • LC says:

      12:19pm | 12/09/11

      They’ve had years to do so and it as of yet has not happened. And it’s only the largest mass-murder on American soil in the history of the world, so if it was indeed a government plot, it would’ve been amongst the first things to be published there, don’t you think?

    • LC says:

      12:19pm | 12/09/11

      They’ve had years to do so and it as of yet has not happened. And it’s only the largest mass-murder on American soil in the history of the world, so if it was indeed a government plot, it would’ve been amongst the first things to be published there, don’t you think?

    • Tahlia says:

      01:59am | 14/09/11

      Wikileaks is only low-level intelligence “chatter” thouands of people in the military had access to.

    • LC says:

      09:37am | 14/09/11

      Access to for what, exactly, Tahlia? Anyone with an internet connection can access it.

    • Phill says:

      10:59am | 12/09/11

      Of all the comments on the here think the one that strikes the hardest was if they could mastermind 9/11 why couldn’t they setup WMD’s to be “found” during the invasion?

    • Jas says:

      11:13am | 12/09/11

      Really, thats what you think is the most compelling?

      The FACT, that building 7 fell at freefall speed, for approximately 2 seconds, is not worthy of any investigation? Because unless the laws of physics and science as we commonly understand them, were somehow suspended that day, the ONLY conclusion that is left, is controlled demolition.

      The easiest way to get to the bottom of this, would be to have an independent, transparent investigation. To this day, the crime of the century, has never been prosecuted. The government could quite easily prove their case through the normal process of evidence, expert testimony, eye witness accounts etc, if indeed, they did have truth on their side.

      As they dont, they continue to be fearfull of any investigation, and resist at every turn.

    • Andrew says:

      11:19am | 12/09/11

      Wow, Phil, your powers of logic are amazing!  You’ve just proved that nineteen Muslim hijackers with box-cutters took control of four separate aircraft, foiled the air defences of the most powerful nation on earth and caused the total collapse, directly and indirectly, of three buildings, including building WTC 7 which collapsed at 5:20pm on 11th September, 2001 and was not hit by any plane.

    • Another (perhaps more sane) Andrew says:

      12:25pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, is the muslim hijackers with box cutters any less logical than the towers being brought down by some military industrial complex and overseen by a government that is willing to kill or injure thousands of its own people.

      I think the muslim hijackers seem much more logical.

      And you make America sound like it is the most efficient country in the world. Remember their response to hurricane Katrina. A quick responding government it wasn’t. Although perhaps they were also behind that as a way to ensure that the New Orleans NFL team would in the future win the Superbowl.

    • Andrew says:

      02:33am | 13/09/11

      The other question to ask phil is why blame the taliban, why not blame iraq, why not blame saddam or a group financed by saddam, exactly were is the oil in afganistan

    • Andrew says:

      02:35am | 13/09/11

      jas, freefall speed for approx 2 seconds???, you really dont have any idea what your talking about do you.

    • Jas says:

      11:26am | 13/09/11

      Andrew says:
      02:35am | 13/09/11
      jas, freefall speed for approx 2 seconds???, you really dont have any idea what your talking about do you.

      ummm, a little bit more than you apparently.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

      gee..  that was too easy.

    • red dog says:

      11:02am | 12/09/11

      I know first hand how bad September 11 was.
      My parents married on Saturday Sept 11

    • red dog says:

      11:05am | 12/09/11

      Sept 11 2001 was the day John Howard saved America and Lleyton Hewitt won the USA Open for men.
      Sept 11 2011 Sam Stosur won the USA Open for women.
      Serens Williams said 6.30 pm Sept 11 2011 USA time
      “I have an opinion,. I am an American ,for God sake”

    • Judas Sanctamonious says:

      11:28am | 12/09/11

      To all you sheeple and ego maniacs who think your significant, who think that Corporate Media and the Government is the truth, the three buildings that went down that day by demolition is significant, our war machine is oiled and now you are secured with our faith, you are nothing but slaves from birth to decay ,you will work for us with a mortgage (death Bond)  pretty much for the rest of your life, the conspiracy is we will let you keep fighting within each other why we guide your lives sheeple.God bless?? oh CRY in my GIN,  William Shake sphere probably wrote the first King James Edition BIBLE go down that rabbit hole????he or who story??

    • Ghost says:

      11:28am | 12/09/11

      Tinfoil John is in his element!

    • Sceptic says:

      11:29am | 12/09/11

      I stopped reading at ‘Truther’.  After that you knew it was going to be nonsense.

    • Emily says:

      11:30am | 12/09/11

      Have any of you closed minded simpletons actually spent more than 30 seconds doing some actual research in to his instead of jumping to unfounded uneducated conclusions?
      Before you go saying its a ‘conspiracy’ read the scientific proof on nano-thermite being found in the dust. Sit down for a few minutes with any credible architect or engineer and get their thoughts on the subject.
      Especially those that have worked with controlled demolition. Get their expert opinion. Then partake in the conversation.
      Look at the science guys, don’t just go on a hunch or a guess.
      You think its to huge an atrocity to cover up? People have spoken out, only they have been laughed at and called conspiracy nuts. People that are at the very top of their filed have spoken out and lost their families and jobs in the process. Firefighters, Police officers, news readers that were there when it happened have openly said that they are angry adn they heard the bombs go of and they demand a re investigation. I personally know of two engineers that have lost their jobs over going public with their views / information on 911. I also know of two amazing professors who were threatened and asked to leave their teaching positions at universities. People have been terrified for their lives, and put their lives at risk to come out only to be kicked down by senseless gits who wont even educate them selves by looking at the science presented. Look at the science, the evidence that is there for you.
      You think such a deceitful act wouldn’t happen in such broad view, just look at what Monsanto is going with GM foods, look at the trillions of dollars that have been dumped in to the senseless war before your eyes, look at the state of the economy, it has all been in plain view and we let it get that way because the majority of people are ignorant and uneducated, and get their news and education from the mainstream propaganda machine. 

      Don’t ever question the rubbish your fed via the media, quickly laugh at anyone that dares to think for themselves and actually look at the science.
      Keep watching the evening news, wake up to read the fin review, get fat, get cancer, take your pharmaceuticals.
      If your not going to look at the science and actually present your ‘educated’ theory, then stop wasting your own time even arguing, leave the argument to science and peer review.
      Go back to the rugby and the fin review, don’t question anything, believe everything your fed, be a good 9-5 slave we need you to keep the things operating anyhow, good on you, your doing just fine smile

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

      ‘The researchers, using electron microscopy, found that a residue of a high tech incendiary, nano-thermite, was present in all the dust samples retrieved from New York on 9/11. They also found iron micro-spheres in the dust, an indicator of intense heat way beyond that attained by office fires.

      If you are curious to know more about the collapse of the towers, please visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and the Remember Building 7 campaign.’

    • St. Michael says:

      11:55am | 12/09/11

      For all the people who have spoken out, not one of the thousands who must have been involved has confessed to direct knowledge or planting a bomb in WTC 1, 2, or 7.

      “If your not going to look at the science and actually present your ‘educated’ theory, then stop wasting your own time even arguing, leave the argument to science and peer review.”

      Ah, no.  It’s the other way round.  You have to blunt Occam’s Razor first.  And I don’t see much peer review of the 9/11 truth hypothesis to date.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:36pm | 12/09/11

      P.S.: The nano-thermite is explained:

      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 to that observation: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

      You find out the next line of the article states “He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.”

    • neil says:

      01:04pm | 12/09/11

      I’m a credible engineer and I have many friends and associates who are crebible engineers and architecs and I don’t recall any of them agreeing with the consiracy nutters.

      The steel core buckeling and collapsing due to the heat generated by the burning fuel is the only senario that stands up to engineering scrutiny.

      If there had been a controlled demolition I suspect a few of the 10,000 people who worked there would have noticed the the hundreds of barrel size charges and miles of cables that would take an army of demolitions experts months to install.

    • Andrew says:

      01:07pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Emily

      Thanks a lot for your courage and your support.  I really appreciate it!

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows the start of the section discussing the overwhelming evidence for melted steel beams and molten metal found at the base of the Twin Towers for more than two weeks after the collapse:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h21m57s

      In an office fire, it is not possible to generate enough heat to melt steel, yet there is undeniable evidence of molten steel during the collapse of the Twin Towers and in the rubble pile afterwards.  Therefore, there must have been some type of incendiary used to melt the steel.

      Here is the start of the section discussing the irrefutable evidence in dust samples from the debris of the collapses for the use of military-grade thermite during the collapse to melt the steel structural connections and steel beams, causing the towers to collapse:
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h32m17s

    • Andrew says:

      01:33pm | 12/09/11

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is the section which presents extensive media footage showing the many, many eye-witness accounts from first-responders and others of explosions during the collapse of all three towers, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h11m6s

      Here is the start of the section which presents further overwhelming evidence for the use of explosives during the collapse of these buildings:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h16m2s

    • Andrew says:

      01:40pm | 12/09/11

      Neil, if you’re a credible engineer with professional qualifications, then why have you made the following spelling mistakes above:

      > “crebible”
      > “architecs”
      > “consiracy”
      > “buckeling”
      > “senario”

      Neil, I don’t believe that you’re a credible engineer at all.

    • neil says:

      01:57pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew I don’t think the opinion of a cospiracy nutter really matters. but if you’ve got nothing more important to do than to run every meaningless blog post through a spell check I imagine you don’t have a very credible job. do you take your tin foil hemet off when you go to center link?

    • Aaron says:

      03:05pm | 12/09/11

      @Andrew: I’m an engineering student, and I can tell you that we engineers ARE NOT english majors, teachers, or in any other way advanced in our english skills.

      The fact that you say he’s not a credible engineer by pointing out spelling mistakes probably means that you don’t understand the engineering terms “Steel Core Buckling” and the concept of exactly how much effort would go into demolition such a massive structure!

      Do us all a favour, and rather than going on about spelling, spend four years at uni studying engineering, or at least take a course in structures, and THEN tell us. I can also guarantee you that any university lecturer will scoff at the idea of this “Controlled Demolition” theory.

    • Ghost says:

      03:09pm | 12/09/11

      @Emily (aka Andrew)

      Name these engineers who lost their jobs and these professors who were threatened, for such action would surely have been made public in the media.

      @Andrew (aka Emily)

      I know it’s you because you thanked Emily for her courage and support, when she never mentioned you.

    • Ian says:

      03:36pm | 12/09/11

      Ah ha!  Nanothermite!  I knew it!
      And exploding cheese sticks.

    • DocBud says:

      04:41pm | 12/09/11

      Neil,

      The use of credible in this instance means an architect or engineer who agrees with Emily.

      By the way, Aaron, as an engineer myself (happily non-credible in this instance) and someone who employs engineers, I have very high expectations of an engineer’s proficiency in grammar and spelling. You will need to communicate your ideas concisely and effectively, and poor spelling is bad manners to your clients. Peer review is not for spell checking.

    • neil says:

      10:30pm | 12/09/11

      DocBud says:
      Doc, I have to agree with Aaron on this one, engineers have the reputation of a spelling and typing equivalent to that of doctors with hand writing. They are rubbish!

      I’m a 40 word a minute three finger typist and I make about 20 typo’s a minute.

      Professionally I use spell check, online when I’m filling time between disasters, I wing it.

    • Aaron says:

      12:19am | 13/09/11

      @DocBud: I completely agree that when engineers write up reports it’s a big deal and should be presented clearly and concisely. In a forum like this, however, I don’t think it’s as necessary. My class mates and I spend plenty of time making sure our english is all good. Not something that comes as naturally as some physics things. (Also, our lecturers have been hammering this ability to communicate).

    • DocBud says:

      07:38am | 13/09/11

      Glad to hear it, Aaron. Good luck with your studies. Engineering has given me an interesting and good life for over 30 years and I hope it is as good to you.

      I type more ponderously than you, Neil, but more accurately, it is a wonderful incentive to be concise.

    • Michael says:

      11:36am | 12/09/11

      WTC building 7 collapsed on September 11, even though it was not hit by a plane

      buildings do not collapse easily, they are purposefully overdesigned

      WTC building 7 was not significantly damaged prior to its collapse

      if that does not convince you that there is more to the events of 9/11 than is on the official record, nothing will

      and then you hear that the US government refuses to release any of the CCTV footage of the plane hitting the pentagon…..they go so far as to confiscate the CCTV footage of the event from local businesses in the area…..for what purpose?

      something is not right.

    • james says:

      12:03pm | 12/09/11

      “WTC building 7 was not significantly damaged prior to its collapse”. Actually it was. It was hit by a significant amount of debris and had several large and uncontrollable fires burning inside it for a number of hours before it collapsed.

    • Michael says:

      01:13pm | 12/09/11

      actually, it wasn’t..

      WTC7, like most buildings, was supported by a strong central core….that there was some damage to the facade of the building from debris is irrelevant….we are talking about the structural integrity of the building, which the core provides…..a few broken windows and dented walls are aesthetic problems not structural ones….WTC7 was not hit with a plane, it was not hit by anything with such force as to damage the core of the building

      you say a fire was burning inside the building..

      fires happen in multistorey buildings every year…..floors are damaged but the building is never at risk of collapse…..the streets surrounding a multistorey building is not evacuated if it catches fire, because fire is not generally seen as a risk to to the structural integrity of the building

    • james says:

      01:56pm | 12/09/11

      No Michael, I think if you did your research you will find that it was. The following quote is from NIST’s leader investigator Shayam Sunder: ‘The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7. On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.’ I think that most reasonable people would count that as structural damage, certaintly the structural engineers who investigated the matter did. As for the fires, these burned far longer than most fires that have effected other tall buildings. You must remember, the collapse of the twin towers cut the areas water mains meaning that the sprinkler system failed. WTC experienced over 7 hours of uncontrollable fires burning on at least 10 stories. That is not just some ordinary office fire.

    • Tom t says:

      11:42am | 12/09/11

      His name is Hereward…..... nuff said !!!!!!

    • Judas Sanctamonious says:

      12:10pm | 12/09/11

      Tom t what do you think about children been molested by priests in church or people grooming themselfs as community workers going around tickling the youth, would you say anything if anything was suspicious?

    • Andrew says:

      12:28pm | 12/09/11

      That’s exactly the kind of comment that I’ve come to expect from people who are not prepared to look at the overwhelming evidence for the controlled demolition of buildings WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 11th September, 2001 using explosives.

      The following film titled “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and is more than two hours in length:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=11m29s

      Here is the shorter, 15-minute version titled “Solving the Mystery of WTC 7”, which has also recently been released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

      It has more than 400,000 views.

    • Aitch B says:

      01:02pm | 12/09/11

      @Andrew

      So what sort of weight does “more than 400,000 views” carry? Is that supposed to strengthen your arguments?

      Who’s to say that 395,000 of those views weren’t by nutters like yourself, John, Ras and others spending countless hours watching it over and over convincing yourselves that the conspiracy theories were in fact the truth?

    • James says:

      01:17pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew, can you please explain how the demolition charges in the twin towers somehow survived intact at the points of the planes’ impact for a full 30-45 minutes surrounded by a 2000 degree fire before being set off in a simultanous explosion? I’m no explosives expert, but somehow that seems a little bit improbable to me.

    • Andrew says:

      03:41pm | 12/09/11

      Hi James

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that the fires in the Twin Towers burned at about 750 degrees Fahrenheit which is about 400 degrees Celsius:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=54m34s

      Nevertheless, your question is a very good one and is something I’ve thought about myself recently.  I don’t know the answer to your question with 100% certainty as to how the demolition set-ups survived the explosions that occurred and the fires that burned when and after the planes hit the towers.  Maybe the answer is that the demolition set-ups were concentrated within the core columns at the centres of the buildings (such as in the elevator shafts) which provided most of their strength.  Maybe this is how the demolition set-ups were shielded from damage prior to the collapses.

      However, the only evidence that is required to draw the conclusion that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, collapsed using controlled demolition is the rate of collapse of these three buildings:

      > Building WTC 1 was 110 storeys in height and collapsed in less than 12 seconds.
      > Building WTC 2 was 110 storeys in height and collapsed in less than 12 seconds.
      > Building WTC 7 was 47 storeys in height and collapsed in less than 7 seconds.

      In total, this is a minium rate of collapse of 8.6 storeys per second [ie. (110 + 110 + 47)/(12 + 12 + 7) ].  Without the use of controlled demolition involving explosives, this is physically impossible.

    • Mark G says:

      04:28pm | 12/09/11

      Andrew,

      “Maybe the answer is that the demolition set-ups were concentrated within the core columns at the centres of the buildings (such as in the elevator shafts) which provided most of their strength.  Maybe this is how the demolition set-ups were shielded from damage prior to the collapses.”

      If this were true the building would not have collapsed when they were set off. You can just blow up the centre supports you need to detonate all the supports. This is where your theory begins to fall apart.

    • Jas says:

      08:01pm | 14/09/11

      the fact that it has 400,000 views isnt really as important than the likes and dislikes.

      5,976 likes, 209 dislikes

      3.497322623828648 percent of viewers agree with the official version of events. lol tin foil hat conspiracy nutters!

      “Who’s to say that 395,000 of those views weren’t by nutters like yourself, John, Ras and others spending countless hours watching it over and over convincing yourselves that the conspiracy theories were in fact the truth?” - Aitch B

      wow, youre in denial real bad. watch it again, and click dislike twice, just to be sure.

    • Ian Campbell says:

      11:50am | 12/09/11

      Nothing can fall faster than gravity. If you dropped an apple from the height of the WTC it would take nearly 13 seconds to hit the ground. Yet we are to believe a building in ‘pancake collapse’ (one floor onto another) according to official records, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm,  only took 10 seconds?

    • MikeS says:

      05:04pm | 12/09/11

      So what you’re saying is that is 100% impossible for the towers to have fallen the way they did, no matter what brought them down.

      Righteo then

    • marley says:

      07:14pm | 12/09/11

      Nothing can fall faster than gravity.  Quite true.  Doesn’t matter whether it’s blown out from below, or crumbles from above.  It falls with gravity.  And your point is?

    • Ian Campbell says:

      07:31pm | 12/09/11

      Sorry Mike I should have said ...Nothing can FREE-FALL faster than gravity…..except in a vacuum. But a controlled demolition, knocking out the basement levels and selected floor levels is not a single collapse but multiple collapses.

    • MikeS says:

      10:46pm | 12/09/11

      Right, so a vacuum was created around the buildings causing them to freefall faster than gravity.

      This just gets better and better.

    • Ian Campbell says:

      10:57am | 13/09/11

      MikeS learn to read what is written not what you make up.

    • Mikes says:

      01:38pm | 13/09/11

      What you wrote was that an apple would take 13 seconds to fall that far, inferring that that was the time a free fall would take. Which would mean that it is impossible to reach the ground any faster than that. Except in a vacuum, so the only way the top of the building could have reached the ground in less than 13 seconds would be if it was in a vacuum.

      Your words Ian. Your words

    • St. Michael says:

      11:52am | 12/09/11

      Here’s an important truth to conspiracy theories: for some people, random events and the event cascades that follow from them are way too much to handle.  Some people’s logic switches simply can’t cope with the idea that you can have cataclysmic disasters resulting from small events that extrapolate in their consequences at an exponential rate.

      Consider the average airliner disaster.  Watch any Air Crash Investigation show and the theme is virtually always the same: one small defect runs into a human oversight, which leads to a particular event, which leads to another, and eventually to the destruction of the plane.  Nobody alleges that all these crashes are intentionally planned or the result of a conspiracy by the makers of airplane parts.  They are established, time and again, as the wrong thing happening at the wrong time.

      Conspiracy theory, for the most part, exists to address that bug-eyed, mouth-open part of people that says “This stuff does not just happen, there has to be a *reason* for it!”  It is the part of us that tends to blank out when we contemplate the size of the universe as opposed to the size of this planet, or that one good asteroid hit would likely be enough to take out human civilisation in the space of a few months or so.  It is, in short, a coping mechanism.  People can’t deal with the concept of JFK getting gunned down because of a combination of stupid security, bad route planning, and a couple of lucky shots; thus the second, third, fourth and even fifth gunmen on grassy knolls, in sewers, and Richard Nixon being in Dallas at the time.

      Conspiracy theory is also usually replete with what psychologists call “confirmational bias”.  As an example, take this quote from the article:

      “The exact details of how the demolitions were carried out have not been proven, but what is clear beyond all reasonable doubt is that they were not brought down simply as a consequence of plane impacts and fires.”

      The combination of “it’s clear it was more than plane impacts and fires” and “I just don’t know how they did the demolitions” is a false argument establishing demolitions because if you made a Venn diagram between the concepts, there are still other explanations available but not disproven: gravity; building design; physics; and so on.  Thinking they are proof of demolition evidences confirmational bias: once you have a theory, human reasoning tends to seek out material that supports your theory and excludes material that contradicts it.  For the most part, this is what the 9/11 truther movement has done. 

      One of the most important Occam Razors you have to deal with in government conspiracy is government incompetence.  The author mentioned Smedley Butler, who’s revered in conspiracy circles as the good general who refused to go along with an attemped putsch of FDR by Wall Street Inc. in the 1920s.  What they forget is that sheer dumbass incompetence exposed the conspiracy: they thought it’d be a cool idea to try and bring Butler into the conspiracy without background checking him first and discovering he was as moral and supportive of the government as anyone could be.  Government is too dumb to keep big conspiracies like this for long, or at all.  Military/industrial is no better.

    • Michael says:

      01:22pm | 12/09/11

      “Thinking they are proof of demolition evidences confirmational bias: once you have a theory, human reasoning tends to seek out material that supports your theory and excludes material that contradicts it.  “

      apply this argument to the WTC7 collapse from another perspective, the results are similar

      The combination of “it’s clear it was just plane impacts and fire damage” and “I just don’t know how else it could have collapsed” is a false argument establishing plane impacts and fire damage because if you made a Venn diagram between the concepts, there are still other explanations available but not disproven.

      notice how air crash investigation is able to explain the events, even when the planes are at the bottom of the ocean…....the collapse of WTC7 should be explainable

      call it controlled demolition if you want, i call it unexplained.

    • Mark G says:

      01:54pm | 12/09/11

      Excellent post St. Michael. A bit of fact about human dillusion.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:00pm | 12/09/11

      @ Michael:

      “notice how air crash investigation is able to explain the events, even when the planes are at the bottom of the ocean…....the collapse of WTC7 should be explainable”

      False analogue.  Aircraft are some of the most complex pieces of machinery ever created by man.  They also have the benefit of being one of the most closely-monitored and documented pieces of machinery ever created by man, not to mention in the case of the US at least, an entire branch of government—the NTSB—devoted to working out why they crashed when they do.

      As far as I can tell, WTC 7 did not have the benefit of a black box flight recorder, radio transcripts from its penthouse, or radar documenting its sudden loss of altitude.  Saying just because air crashes are explainable means the collapse of a building should be explainable is like saying because water is wet I should be able to predict the viscosity of petroleum.  No correlation whatsoever.

      Unexplained does not mean controlled demolition.

    • LC says:

      11:56am | 12/09/11

      Here is a rough list of everyone who needs to be involved to some extent or another in order for a government plan to bring down the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon to get off the ground:

      - Lots of people in the Bush administration (obviously), and they weren’t known for being competent.
      - The New York Fire Department, The New York Police Department and the New York Port Authority, all of whom lost personnel, and have not called for any investigation.
      - The people in the Pentagon, my of whom are left-leaning, because they have not called for an investigation.
      - The FBI
      - The CIA
      - Practically everyone in the NIST.  It can’t just be a handful of people, everyone has to be in sync with the others so the evidence is consistent. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on.
      - Any structural engineer in the world who does not write an article for a peer-reviewed paper stating the towers could not have been bought down because of fire.
      - The American Society of Civil Engineers who’ve wrote several peer-reviewed papers that did not back up the conspiracy theorist’s version of events.
      - Structure magazine, which published an article that building 7 likely collapsed due to column failure.
      - The media in America and abroad.
      - PBS who made a documentary about how the buildings fell. Not once was “bomb” or “controlled demolition” mentioned.
      - The NY scrapyards who would have to sell all the scrap steel before it was all investigated under orders from Bush.
      - The NY governor George Pataki, who ordered the salvageable steel sold to construct the USS New York. He would’ve also been in on it if the steel was sold quickly to cover up incriminating evidence.
      - Any of the 1,600 widows and widowers who lost loved ones and did not call for an investigation.
      - The insurance company who paid out $2 billion without asking for any investigation.
      - American and United airlines who owned the lost planes
      - The airports where the planes were stationed.
      - Installers of any remote control devices in the planes.
      - Scientists and engineers who developed and tested the remote technology.
      - The remote controllers of the planes.
      - Installers of any demolition devices in the WTC.
      - Scientists and engineers who developed and tested the demolition technology to ensure it would work on the day.
      - The people who detonated the explosives.
      - Airport staff who received calls from “passengers” on the planes.
      - Friends, loved ones and relatives who claim to have been called by “passengers” on the “planes”
      - The courts who imposed a gag order that prevented a firefighter caught in a civil lawsuit from talking to the media.
      - Any eyewitness who claimed to see a passenger plane.

      This will make for a grand total of 1000s-10,000s of people. Conspiracies generally only involve a handful of people (eg: Watergate) and are still quickly uncovered. So what the f*ck makes you think that this conspiracy that potentially involves tens of thousands of people can stay secret for 10 years?

    • St. Michael says:

      12:17pm | 12/09/11

      Also add

      - The entire security complement of WTC 1 and WTC 2 during the hours and hours of time it would take to wire nearly one hundred floors of building with explosives.
      - Every shotfirer who wired WTC 1 and 2 with explosives (there’d have to be a few.)

      Here’s an article on the dropping of a building with explosives: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/article/jl-hudson-department-store-detroit-michigan

      The most salient part is this story about the prep required to drop the building:

      “In 24 days, CDI’s 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays” and an additional 216 “micro-delays” in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.”

      And that’s just for 33 levels, including the basements.
      WTC 1 and WTC 2 were a hell of a lot bigger.
      Hence Hereward’s crash-through to say “it is not yet proven how the building was demolished,” because unless the demolition teams, det cord, and several tons of explosive (even nano-thermite) were inserted via transporter beam in on Captain Kirk’s orders by Scotty from the Enterprise, there is no explanation short of “A Wizard Did It.”

    • Erik says:

      12:44pm | 12/09/11

      That is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time LC. Wake up.

    • LC says:

      01:54pm | 12/09/11

      Erik,

      No it’s not stupid. It’s plain fact.

      That is a rough list of exatcly whom would be required to pull such a plot off. It is enough people to fill one of the towers.

      Planting WMD’s in Iraq to uncover as “evidence”, or stanging the Moon Landing in a Hollywood studio would take less effort and involve less people than this.

    • Mike says:

      02:03pm | 12/09/11

      You cannot make the evidence fit with your world view, the evidence stands on it’s own. Aside from the fact that everything you have listed has been rigorously debated for years now across the 9/11 truth community right up to very high academic circles, journalists, pilots, architects, engineers, and so on and you are listing them here as though nobody has considered these things and as though they dismiss on their own the hard evidence. What’s important to understand is that the 9/11 truth community does not claim to have all the answers. The primary catch call of the community is that we all want a new and proper investigation. You can’t deny some hard facts:

      High school physics: the top part of the twin towers did not have enough mass and therefore potential energy to BOTH pulverise thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete AND fall at free fall speed. It could do one or the other, not both (and by the way it did not have the potential energy to pulverise that concrete, fall one fall, and slide off -maybe but not pulverise in a pancake fashion it’s the most ludicrous explanation in the history of stupidity). Second, WTC7 not hit by a building also fell the same day at free fall speed. All three buildings fell symmetrically that means evenly into their own foot print, despite being separate entities, two hit by separate planes, the third not even hit by a plane.  This is simply improbable beyond imagining. There is no example of anything close in history. buildings fall to one side, break apart, or something like that, they don’t fall at free fall speed symmetrically. Anyone who can’t grasp this key fact is by definition under mind control because that’s when you have evidence something yet you believe something to the contrary.

      There is an abundance of evidence further than this, of course this is just a comment box. But this alone is irrefutable science which we used to put men in space, build bridges, planes, this is basic newtonian physics. You cannot dispute this basic, simple high school level logic. the apple does not fall up from the ground and reattach itself to the tree. That is what people who believe the government conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers directed by a bearded man on dialysis in a cave on the other side of the world bypassed NORAD, Cheyenne mountain, and the like 20 intelligence agencies, of the greatest military super power on the planet not to mention the most sophisticated air defence system ever known, are attempting to do.

      The fact 9/11 was an inside job is an open secret among international intelligence agencies, and there are many whistle blowers to that effect you just have to look because ABC or whoever are not going to bring that to your precious attention.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:50pm | 12/09/11

      There’s a lot of resorting to “the mob has spoken” or “there are tons of evidence supporting this.”

      Where that comes apart is
      (a) the mob lynches people
      (b) if individual pieces of evidence do not support the whole conclusion, then it invalidates the entire hypothesis.  Which is most of the problem with the 9/11 truther evidence.

    • AT says:

      04:36pm | 12/09/11

      Mike, leave your high school physics in the schoolyard where they belong.

      The only sensible comment in your farcical post is the line: “There is no example of anything close in history.” That’s right, Mikey, nothing to compare it to, no precedents, no parallels to be drawn. Yet you seem certain that even in these thoroughly unique situations buildings would collapse as they do in cartoons; ‘falling to one side’ you said. What, you expected the top 30 or 40 storeys to swing as if on hinges and topple to the ground?

      And the free fall theory has been thoroughly refuted — a poster has provided a link on this very page even, go have a squizz.

      If there’s even the slightest tenability to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, hysterical buffoons like you will repel any open minded sceptic from considering your ideas…......

      .......Hang on. Oh no! You’re part of the conspiracy!! You’ve been planted by the cabal to discredit the truthers movement!!! Argh!!!! ARGH!!!!! AARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Jason Todd says:

      02:04am | 13/09/11

      Mike -

      The time required for the towers to fall at free fall has been calculated at about 9 seconds.

      Every video and recording of the incident that I have seen indicates that both towers took longer than this to fall.

      Example is here;
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded

      So, does that mean that the story is sound now? It wasn’t falling at free fall speed therefore no conspiracy?

      For those interested, further analysis, including calculations (using high school physics) and video of the free fall theory can be found http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

    • A different (possibly saner) Andrew says:

      12:08pm | 12/09/11

      What about those Psychic spies in China, and not to mention Major League Baseball using top secret sattelites to spy on the american population to ensure they buy enough merchandise?

      Seriously, i just have visions of the author sitting in his basement with a hat made of aluminium foil to ward off his invisable enemies.

      But to take the subject matter on. I believe that despite what rules, theories etc that we know in regards to physics, engineering, architecture etc and that the “truthers” probably have models to prove it. Can we truly understand and model what will happen when something as unrealistic as a commercial airliner crashing at speed into a building? Surely there are some things which go beyond the rule that we understand as being part of a normal event.

    • Mike says:

      01:53pm | 12/09/11

      Dude. High school physics. Try to follow me here. The mass in the top part of the twin towers had EITHER (choose one) a) the potential energy to fall at near free fall speed (no resistance) to the ground OR b) the potential to crush and pulverise the concrete and steel structure below it. It is not both. It is EITHER / OR. I am not saying it HAD the potential energy to do b), but lets just assume it did (it did not), you still can’t have it both ways. High school physics. You’ve been conned. The majority of the media are a bunch of sycophantic losers who have no clue. History will NOT remember them kindly. Having said that plenty of journalists have spoken out about this event. There has never EVER been a symmetrical free fall speed building collapse in history. Symmetrical man. You got that? It means it didn’t fall to one side, it came down in pure controlled demolition style, not only ONE building, but three, even though the second one was obviously hit in a different way / angle, it still fell EXACTLY the same way. As for building 7, no plane, no structural core damage. Fell at free fall speed. Owner announced it was coming down, as did the BBC. Enough said. Wake up, or buzz off.

    • Mikeymike says:

      12:56am | 14/09/11

      Mike:

      I’ve had enough of this.  A challenge for you, if you will…

      Explain using “high school physics” (use formulas, my maths is pretty good) how your theory is proved.  You keep saying it, now prove it.

    • Jane2 says:

      12:17pm | 12/09/11

      What does “finding the truth” do?

      It wont bring the thousands who died on the day or of illnesses back to life.

      It wont suddenly stop the war.

      It wont bring the thousands of soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of middle eastern civilians whohave died due to this conflict back to life.

      It wont even change who is in power in the US as those that “supposedly” have done the dead have retired/died.

      What is the point?

      Concentrate on things that, if you change them, they actually make a difference.

    • Godwin says:

      01:50pm | 12/09/11

      Really?

      What is the point of knowing whether the Holocaust was real or not? What is the point of chasing 95yo former concentration camp guards?

      Think about it before you post.

    • Andrew says:

      02:44pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Jane2

      If we do not expose the official story for the pack of lies that it is, then the ‘War on Terror’ is going to go on for another ten years and more and produce just as much bloodshed and destruction as the last ten years, if not more.

      Do you really feel so little compassion for the innocent people who continue to be murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan by US military forces, as well as the military from assisting countries, that you do not care about what is true and what is deception?

    • Tahlia says:

      02:05am | 14/09/11

      And the awrd for the most idiotic post goes to….
      seriously, if your child was muredered would you say to the police “don’t worry about collecting evidence” or prosecuting anybody as my child won’t come to life. Lets just do away with university histiry departments shall we, after all, its all in the past…

    • Kika says:

      12:28pm | 12/09/11

      Is it also possible that the building collapsed because of the structural integrity of the buildings being jeopardised by sh*tty concrete - which was being controlled at the time of building by the Mafia?

    • marley says:

      01:53pm | 12/09/11

      @Kika - no, as I understand it, the structural integrity of the building relied on the steel framework, not the concrete - and real structural engineers (as opposed to the conspiracy guys) are generally quite impressed that the buildings stood as long as they did, in the circumstances.

    • Kika says:

      04:55pm | 12/09/11

      Oh yeah the steel - that’s the mafia connection. Woops got them around the wrong way.

    • stevem says:

      05:11pm | 12/09/11

      Kika, I believe the reason they were built of steel was deliberately to avoid the use of concrete as much as possible due to Mafia influences.

    • Johnny atheos says:

      12:41pm | 12/09/11

      Having lived in Saudi Arabia for 2 years in the early 80’s and a regular reader of the English version of Arab News with its ongoing and continued editorial hatred of all things Western, American, European, Jewish, Christian etc. I was not surprised. I was surprised however that the Islamists had managed to pull it off and bring down the buildings.

      What is more surprising and disappointing is how this religious act justified by a work of fiction and carried out by followers of a moon god, has been turned into a media circus and the blame apportioned away. The fact that the funding came from the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and other like-minded Islamist organization and this act was openly supported across the Islamic world. Has been ignored and still is by a multitude of cultural relativists, conspiracy boneheads, religious apologists and Leftist intellectuals.

      As with most violent political acts it has been reshaped and reused by the body politic to suit ongoing and new agendas. No logical or rational cause for this crime is wanted or needed by all sides, including the Islamists and conspiracy boneheads.

    • B_Have says:

      01:02pm | 12/09/11

      I just love how they found the terrorists passports, that fell out of a burning plane, survived a falling building, and was safely found, all paper intact. Amazing isn’t it.

    • Andrew says:

      02:26pm | 12/09/11

      B_Have, there’s no business like show business!

    • DocBud says:

      06:13pm | 12/09/11

      One terrorist’s passport, actually, and it didn’t need to survive a falling building, it was found before the building collapsed:

      “The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old.The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The
      tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.”

      From: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

      It wasn’t the only paper or plastic item found:

      “On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner’s itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/nyregion/12VIGN.html?ex=1192766400&en=990f09a40f324af3&ei=5070

    • Ian Campbell says:

      07:36pm | 12/09/11

      Didn’t find any Black Boxes though!!!

    • Jason Todd says:

      02:42am | 13/09/11

      They also found several, incredibly flammable plane seats and other debris from inside the plane… What are you saying?

    • Kassandra says:

      01:10pm | 12/09/11

      Nuttier than peanut brittle. This conspiracy theory is probably in-between JFK and the moon landing for outright implausibility. The best is Area 51 though, can’t beat that one. Waste of time arguing with people who believe this stuff, it’s like trying to use simple logic to explain to a believer in UFOs why their belief is so implausible.

      It’s because the basic assumptions underlying this kind of magical thinking are false. To everyone else it’s obvious but the believers can’t see that their basic assumptions are false so never understand that their whole theory is nonsensical.

    • Kika says:

      01:26pm | 12/09/11

      Are you saying that in the unknown universe that we are the only planet with life?  It’s actual plausible when you think of how big the universe is that there is life out there. The question remains as to whether that life form has the intelligence to travel faster than the speed of light to come to earth.

      What I don’t get, about people who really believe in UFO’s, is that if you’re going to invest in travelling across the galaxies to come to earth why do they never stop to say hello. Are they alien voyeurs or something and get thrills from spying on us? Or abducting and doing tests on us and then leaving again? It just seems like a waste of time if they come here, spy on us, and then leave without even saying hello and dropping in for a tea and a biscuit!

    • marley says:

      01:51pm | 12/09/11

      @kika - tea and biscuits?  maybe the aliens aren’t English.

    • Trevor says:

      03:06pm | 12/09/11

      They are actually highly advanced humans from the future who cannot interfere with current events for fear of messing with the time/space continuum.

      But in all seriousness, it is actually more likely that alien life forms exist than do not. Whether they have visited Earth is another matter…

    • Kassandra says:

      03:34pm | 12/09/11

      @ Kika

      No, I’m saying check your basic assumptions.

      OK, just for starters. Suppose there are other planets with intelligent lifeforms. How many do you think? How many right now? What are the chances of one of those being capable of travelling between the stars? (we can’t - we can’t even get to our nearest neighbour in the solar system yet). Supposing there is one out there right now, or even more than one, what are the chances they are anywhere near our part of the galaxy? Even given all this, how would they get here? How long would it take? (as far as we know faster-than-light travel is not possible, Star Trek nothwithstanding). Even supposing they have mastered wormhole technology, or some other science fiction travel method that gets around E=mc2, why would they want to come here?

    • Junod says:

      01:21pm | 12/09/11

      Every ‘truther’ on here has presented as ‘evidence’ a variety of conspiracy theorist websites and youtube. Note to users of the internet: NEITHER THESE WEBSITES, NOR WIKIPEDIA ARE CREDIBLE SOURCES FROM WHICH TO GAIN FACTS AND EXPERT ANALYSIS. As an educator, I am getting well and truly fed up with arm chair experts setting the lowest possible standard by attending the ‘university of google’ and believing that as a result they are actually informed on complex issues that they know little to nothing about. It is a sad indictment on how few people today possess the basic skills of critical thinking, ie: knowing what sources are credible to consult when drawing a conclusion and what sources are not. Bottom line: in the real world, the moment you start citing youtube and non peer-reviewed online information sources you become a joke - and not a funny one either.

    • Matt says:

      06:10pm | 12/09/11

      Debunk this with YOUR own peer-reviewed paper genius.

      Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

      ‘We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.’

    • Junod says:

      09:43pm | 12/09/11

      Thank you for proving my point. The fact that you produce the one article - the only ‘academic’ article - that truthers cling to shows how little you understand that critical thinking I was talking about.

      The Bentham Publishing group that puts out the Open Chemists Physics Journal is not a recognised peer-review publishing group. Two editors of the journal have resigned over discredited articles that were published, and then later found out not to be peer reviewed.

      So, in conclusion: one article from a dubious source with a history of peer-review indiscretions does not present a credible case.

      I realise this won’t change anything with you, I just want you and others to understand that there is process in critical and objective analysis that truthers the world over seem to be missing.

    • Tahlia says:

      02:14am | 14/09/11

      I am a teacher and I have no problem watching videos on youtube or watching an expert give his opinion or write an essay on the internet. The webiste “Architects and Engineers” for 9/11 Truth is incredibly impressive. Just like you can publish a book, you can publish on the internet. I can see with my own eyes the buildings collapsing juke like ina controlled demolition. Interestingly, in 2001, youtube was still 4 years away from being invented. Many people know about Building 7 because of youtube and the internet (coz the mainstream media and the 9/11 Commission aint interested in informing us - it wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report)
      It seems YOU have missed out on the basic skills of critical thinking, which does actually involve holding up to the light and scrutisnisng teh stories fed to us by the powers that be.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:50pm | 14/09/11

      “I am a teacher and I have no problem watching videos on youtube or watching an expert give his opinion or write an essay on the internet.”

      I weep for our youth.

    • Andrew says:

      05:46am | 15/09/11

      Hi St. Michael at 10:50pm on 14-Sep-2011

      You can weep all you want.  Tahlia is one of the best posters on this article.  I enjoy reading her fresh insights.

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      01:38pm | 12/09/11

      Oh no, not the “military-industrial complex”! 

      Mate, you’re crazierthan Bob Ellis, Erick, and that nice lady from the CEC who thinks that Prince Phillip is a shape-changing reptilian drug dealer all rolled into one.

    • Jim says:

      02:41pm | 12/09/11

      “crazier than Bob Ellis”

      Now that’s really cruel grin

    • Tanya says:

      01:55pm | 12/09/11

      I believe everything the establishment says. They thought there were WMD’s in Iraq which was fair enough because it sure seemed like it and they were inhospitable to the inspectors. Then a Saudi Arabian, albeit unknown to the NWO (other than happening to be the son of a prominent Saudi family that had business dealings with the least moronic of the Bush political dynasty), formed a terrorist network and masterminded 9/11 from Afghanistan or Pakistan or somewhere untrustworthy.  So the invasion of Iraq was obviously the most expedient and logical action. 

      Don’t agree with this article.  If you support the author (who is probably, like Assange, working for the Military Industrial Complex), your details will go into a database. Someone masquerading as a meter reader will inject your family pet with a listening device and all your emails, text messages and comments will be siphoned, OCR scanned and in a few red flagged cases, personally scrutinised. Come the revolution, you will be taken away in the night without breach of legislation. And unlike Winston in 1984, they won’t bother with rehabilitation – they’ll just vaporise you immediately after showing you a movie about the truth so you can go out screaming.

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      02:00pm | 12/09/11

      Don’t forget that *they* can be foiled with simple aluminium foil though, available in any supermarket!

    • Tanya says:

      04:09pm | 12/09/11

      I know, Craig, but you need a lot of it and once they’re onto you, they’ll thwart any attempt to acquire it. (I’ve been accumulating it and burying it in a secure location ever since I learned about the reptilian control of the world. But that aside, what about Microsoft Windings and 9/11.  If Q33NY is typed in Wingdings, the Q becomes an aircraft, the threes skyscrapers (if you ignore the fact that they’re documents), the N turns into a skull and crossbones, and the Y becomes the Star of David. They don’t want us to know these things, but we do.

    • Ben says:

      02:23pm | 12/09/11

      acotrel says:07:19am | 12/09/11

      The fact that the buildings didn’t just fall over immediately when hit, is amazing ! Perhaps I see these things with different eyes ?

      The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 so it’s not surprising they still stood for a while.

      After the impacts the buildings physically swayed as vibration waves moved up and down the building - that’s got to weaken things for starters.

      A documentary soon after 9/11 said that a lot of the fire retardant insulation around the steel support structure had weakened or fallen off over the years, exposing the steel beams to greater heat from the fires than was planned.

      A documentary shown last week said that the sheer volume of paper and other flammable office products was enough combined with the jet fuel to raise temperatures to a level which would weaken steel.

      Once the steel had weakened enough there was too much weight above to hold the building up and down they went.

      Once two buildings 400m high fell down I don’t think it would be surprising to find that problems existed with neighbouring buildings. They spent months trying to stop the Hudson River breaking through the seawall into the site, you don’t think WTC 7 could have been affected as well? I remember hearing the news reports on that day about the dangers of other buildings collapsing, one of which was WTC7

    • Jane2 says:

      02:23pm | 12/09/11

      Rivers of moultern metal? Why was there only sphereits (nano size spheres) of moultern metal found [ I watched this YouTube doco that supposedly has the answers and it doesnt].

      Its easier to believe it was rivers of red hot glass flowing down the side of the building. Glass has a lower melt point and is already on the outside edge and there was a lot of it.

    • Andrew says:

      04:52pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Jane2

      The following footage from the film “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, which has just been released by 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, shows expert testimony that the yellow molten metal pouring out of building WTC 2 (South Tower) prior to its collapse was molten iron and not molten aluminium as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claimed:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h25m48s

      Here is the start of the section discussing the overwhelming evidence for melted steel beams and molten metal found at the base of the Twin Towers for more than two weeks after the collapse:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&t=1h21m57s

    • Ghost says:

      03:27pm | 12/09/11

      Come on Andrew, Mick, John, Emily…

      You have some people asking you some very plausible questions.  You haven’t answered one.  You have just posted your favourite youtube site over and over.  Go through the blog and answer the very real questions you have been asked that justify your theory (how did the explosives NOT explode when hit be the plane and fireball and all the other logical questions?)

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      04:07pm | 12/09/11

      @Ghost you make valid points and I agree that these questions need answering. So far, we have established a prima facie case that the buildings were taken down deliberately, based on the freefall observations and the numerous witness reports of explosions.

      Harrit et. al have identified the form high-tech explosives that were used.

      There is also strong evidence that the plane impacts did cause premature detonation of some of the thermit cutter charges, evidenced by streams of molten metal pouring out of a corner of the south tower shortly before the collapse.

      These questions need to be cleared up, so let’s a have a real investigation and find out!

    • Andrew says:

      04:17pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Ghost

      Your question is a very good one and is something I’ve thought about myself recently.  I don’t know the answer to your question with 100% certainty as to how the demolition set-ups survived the explosions that occurred and the fires that burned when and after the planes hit the towers.  Maybe the answer is that the demolition set-ups were concentrated within the core columns at the centres of the buildings (such as in the elevator shafts) which provided most of their strength.  Maybe this is how the demolition set-ups were shielded from damage prior to the collapses.

      However, the only evidence that is required to draw the conclusion that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, collapsed using controlled demolition is the rate of collapse of these three buildings:

      > Building WTC 1 was 110 storeys in height and collapsed in less than 12 seconds.
      > Building WTC 2 was 110 storeys in height and collapsed in less than 12 seconds.
      > Building WTC 7 was 47 storeys in height and collapsed in less than 7 seconds.

      In total, this is a minium rate of collapse of 8.6 storeys per second [ie. (110 + 110 + 47)/(12 + 12 + 7) ].  Without the use of controlled demolition involving explosives, this is physically impossible.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:40pm | 12/09/11

      @ Hereward Fenton:

      “So far, we have established a prima facie case that the buildings were taken down deliberately, based on the freefall observations and the numerous witness reports of explosions.”

      You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Prima facie case means a case that on its face looks like the proposition proposed.  Neither of the pieces of evidence provided is capable of proving that.

      “Harrit et. al have identified the form high-tech explosives that were used.”

      Back to nano-thermite, is it? Did they identify they were explosives that caused their presence and that said explosives were detonated?

      “There is also strong evidence that the plane impacts did cause premature detonation of some of the thermit cutter charges, evidenced by streams of molten metal pouring out of a corner of the south tower shortly before the collapse.”

      It’s not due to thermite.  Nor is it necessarily molten metal.  Do the reading.

    • Ghost says:

      08:01pm | 12/09/11

      @Hereward and Andrew

      What do you make of SimpleSimon’s link:

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

      Andrew what is your expertise in physics, explosives, gravity and the ability to coordinate a few thousand people to pull this off, sight unseeen?

      To both gents, when someone points out an obvious flaw in your theories, you simply don’t respond.

    • Mike says:

      08:28pm | 12/09/11

      Hereward answers that question, you act as though this random group of people had subpoena power and $100 million to do the asking. We’ve had to piece this much together to show that the original investigation is a sham and bring it to your attention but so far the majority of you so called skeptics (who are unable to realise that you have applied ZERO skepticism to the official lie) and debunkers (who have applied zero efforts into debunking either the official lie or the prominent conspiracy theory aka controlled demo) are so utterly lacking it critical thinking that it’s staggering. It took me about 30 seconds to get it once I was explained the basic high school physics of it (let alone the absolute mountain of other corroborating evidence one only needs to take the trouble to LOOK). Follow it now: SOMETHING demolished the towers. IF it was the “top bit” of the building that fell and caused collapse and pulverisation of all the bottom bit, including the massive steel core structure, then that “top bit” EITHER had the potential energy derived from it’s mass to A) Pulverise and destroy *itself* AND the lower part of the building OR B) fall at near free fall speed to the ground. It CANNOT do both, where has the additional energy come from. This is so fundamentally basic in education I’m asking you to give me the answer to 1+1. If you keep saying it’s 3…. what hope does society have?

    • Matt says:

      10:39pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Mike/Hereward/Andrew,

      Perhaps you can enlighten us, then, on how the explosives were moved/installed into the building? Also, how much was needed? What sort of manpower hours would be needed to install the explosives, and how difficult would it be to have them set off at *exactly* the same time? When was the last time (pre 9/11)  a building the size of the WTC’s went through a controlled demolition? Why hasn’t anyone come forward with evidence of them installing explosives into the buildings?

      Thanks.

    • TC says:

      12:21am | 13/09/11

      Andrew is that the second or third time you have now posted the exact same answer to a question you cannot answer without 100% certainty.  As Ghost has asked, answer the specific points raised not just simply repeat the same “facts” over and over again.  I love how people like yourself ask others to open their eyes to the truth yet you will not consider a single point that does not match your views

    • Andrew says:

      03:34am | 13/09/11

      ndrew and mike and the rest do you know the amount of thermite it would take to cut through the steel, also thermite doesnt explode and according the truthers explosions were heard, so if thermite was used to bring the building down why the explosions, to alert people something was happening. By the way, the survivors of the titantic reported hearing explosions, do you also think explosions were used to sink the titantic.

    • Statically Determinate says:

      03:43pm | 12/09/11

      This is both hilarious to read and infuriating at the same time.

      It’s almost as if the conspiracy crackpots don’t know what Google is for. There is a wealth of information outlining what led to the collapse of all three buildings. Especially the WTC7. It was a combination of very heavy debris hitting the building and an unconventional structural design.

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

      Sanity, sadly, does not seem to be prevailing today.

    • DocBud says:

      06:22pm | 12/09/11

      SD, I think we can safely dismiss any website with “military” in the title as being part of the military industrial complex and therefore part of the conspiracy.

    • tahlia says:

      02:22am | 14/09/11

      Even NIST doesn’t blame “an unusual structural design” for the colllapse of Building 7!! There was nothing unusual about the design of Building 7, it was overengineered just like all steel framed skyscrapers. It had ten core steel colums for heaven’s sake!
      That popular mechanics articles is a downright peice of crap. Love the use of “experts say” and “engineers believe” never naming names or providing references. The Truth movement has plenty of experts willing to put their names to their statements. Watch the film “9/11 Experts speak out” it’s widely available. But I bet you won’t because you simplay can’t handle the truth!

    • jinky says:

      03:44pm | 12/09/11

      did i miss the bit about how both towers were extensively wired up with explosives in the days before 9/11 and no one noticed? i know americans don’t pay attention to much but surely the dude in the uniform, with the semtex and the detonator would have been noticed by at least one person.
      this must be the dumbest blog in history of the punch, and there has been some stiff competition.

    • DocBud says:

      06:18pm | 12/09/11

      The explosives were wired up by a Wile E Coyote, wearing overalls with ACME Phone Company on the back so nobody took any notice.

    • Sam says:

      03:54pm | 12/09/11

      I am surprised the Australian Green’s have not tried to blame the Jews as per normal, being the racist bunch they are.

    • Graham S says:

      04:26pm | 12/09/11

      9/11 Truthers? Up there with Holocaust deniers, The Bermuda Triangle and Roswell believers and interviews with Hillbillies supposedly scooped up by Aliens,  This article is a sad, sick diatribe that one could deduce was written by a deluded, chronic hater of all things American or an Eco Nazi Greens Senator

    • john says:

      06:55pm | 12/09/11

      and also weapons of mass destruction deniers. They still don’t believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Morons! and that Saddam Husein wasn’t supporting AL-qaeda! Iran is filled with Al-Qaeda also but the deniers don’t believe it! These morns…

    • Andrew says:

      03:38am | 13/09/11

      So john, why did they blame the taliban for 9/11 why didnt they blame iraq (saddam) or at worse both, no need for WMD then, the american people would have been baying for blood and attacking iraq would have been seen as been justified. Im waiting with breathe as to why this didnt happen.

    • MikeS says:

      05:05pm | 12/09/11

      The only way 2 people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

    • Mr A Dad says:

      05:26pm | 12/09/11

      Is it just me or does it seem like Andrew has done nothing all day, but copy and paste reply after reply after reply after reply after reply after reply.

      Now I have looked on Wikipedia and YouTube and stupidflanders.org and all signs points towards Andrew really being Hereward, if you take the N from Fenton and combine it with A DREW from Hereward, we get:-

      ANDREW!!!!!! 

      Serious people my four year old, who went out and profiled 3.6 billion engineers architects and psychiatrist said it was true. Also I saw it on sunrise and Kochie wouldn’t; lie to the Australian Public. Would he?

      Oh where was I agian, now I lost my place in the latest Dan Brown novel, damn you sexy Flanders

    • Pando says:

      05:36pm | 12/09/11

      Whoever and however they destroyed these buildings, they were terrorists and cunning enough to avoid detection beforehand. If they’ve managed to get away with the crime, or if they have equally cunning co-conspirators out and about now, then everyone is in grave danger.  It ian’t an academic exercise, and the danger won’t vanish or lessen even if you answer all these questions.

    • ChrispyT says:

      05:47pm | 12/09/11

      OK - so the moderators are stopping sensible comments from coming through and are allowing only name calling and official story supporting ones.

      So much for free speech.

      There was a countdown to building 7’s demolition. The footage is online. Just grow a spine and allow me to say that will you? Come on, ed -. What type of world do you want your kids living in?
      Freedom of speech for everyone please. and how bout allowing my original comment?

      I also mentioned the pschological response of denial being the way that people cope with info that is outside of their worldview.

      just a little bit of spine, please, editor?

    • ChrispyT says:

      06:06pm | 12/09/11

      Freedom of speech is being stifled here. I tried posting comments at 430 and again at 545. They’re not coming through. Is it because I support Hereward’s position and am not here to throw around insults and call all questioners ‘conspriacy theorists’?

      On what grounds are the comments moderated?

      I didn’t swear. I didn’t post advertising or unrelated material? I think ad hominem attacks shouldn’t be let through, but you have no issues with that. So I guess I’ll have to run off at the mouth if I want to be posted, so here I go.

      You’re a bunch of crazy crack pots who believe in bigfoot and think the gummit’s out to getcha! ooga booga - put on your tinfoil hat!

      I think that’s sufficiently patronizing to pass muster, so will you let it?

    • Macon Paine says:

      07:35pm | 12/09/11

      For once I agree with you 9/11 loonies.

      I posted earlier today encouraging thepunch to ask the guys over at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ to do a rebuttal of Hereward’s nonsense (amongst other things) and it hasn’t been posted. What gives? By comparison to some of the nonsense here I was quite tame.

      Interesting that you complain about censorship though ChrispyT, considering your buffonish"movement” are the kings of censorship and gate keeping bar none. They censor just about every theory they don’t like including banning debunkers who only try to correct some of the rubbish these people go on with. Complete hypocrites the lot of them. They have no problem with censorship unless it’s being done to them.

    • Brian says:

      06:19pm | 12/09/11

      This article reminds of the NWO (New World Order) we have been waiting to come to pass for DECADES now…......when is it going to happen you conspiracy theory wackos????????, If the Neocon Bush Government pulled off 9/11 then why did they lose an Election to Obama or why were no WMDs found, compared to 9/11 placing WMDs in Iraq would be easy….........I think you are just a bunch of brainwashed children.

    • John says:

      06:59pm | 12/09/11

      It was determined that Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction before the 9/11 attacks. It would of been pretty dumb to place weapons of mass destruction there. Western Weapons inspectors new the game before it started. Bushy would of been called out on it.

    • Andrew says:

      07:23pm | 12/09/11

      Hi Brian

      In the UK, you can’t walk down the street without being filmed by one of thousands of CCTV cameras.

      In the USA, you can’t fly on an aeroplane without first being subjected to a naked body scanner or a TSA worker putting their hand down your pants.

      I’d say the New World Order is already here.

    • Brian says:

      07:57pm | 12/09/11

      Its OK Andrew and John to admit you have weak minds that are easily led astray….......@Andrew, with out a doubt the stupidest argument I have ever heard as to why Conspicaries (NWO) NEVER come to pass, Please enlighten us as to why the NWO is not happening? @John, I am calling you out on this one….......Why has the NWO not happened?

    • John says:

      09:17pm | 12/09/11

      Brian, i don’t know about NWO. But i sense that international bankers run this theater show called western democracy. I also think they push a socialist marxist agenda, force the nations that they occupy and rule to embrace multiculturalism, carbon tax and mass immigration against the wishes of the western people. They also counterfeit and loot nations from out of their wealth. This is why all the west has about 20 trillion dollars owing to the international counter fit bankers. It’s seems like every western country is in debt to these parasites. I’m sure they had their hand in 9/11, maybe there was financial gain from invading Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. They also order western military’s who to fight.

    • JC says:

      06:30pm | 12/09/11

      Robots did it.

    • gravy says:

      06:41pm | 12/09/11

      I’m 100% a fence sitter on this topic; I have no idea what really happened on that fateful day,  I definitely don’t know if it was all a big conspiracy or if it was just a pure act of terrorism by some misguided religious nutters. All i know is i was having a nice dinner party with a few uni friends watching a movie when the planes hit and all hell broke loose, we spent the next few hours glued to the TV watching the events unwind and seeing the 2nd plane hit the towers live.

      I also remember seeing first hand accounts of firefighters, reporters and normal citizens claiming to have heard explosions etc, and i also remember some reports of the firefighters reaching the floors where the planes had hit etc. I also remember thinking ‘wow that was lucky’ when the buildings fell and didn’t tip over and crash on top of a whole lot of other buildings. This all of course doesn’t mean diddly squat, it sure as hell doesn’t mean that it was a massive gov set up, it just means there are some questions that should be asked, and i sure as hell don’t have the answers.

      I guess what I’m saying is i don’t know which side to believe; i have seen some of the conspiracy theories and SOME of it makes sense, but i think there are also some parts of it that are a bit ‘wacko’ and out there. For example I would love to know how all the ‘explosives’ were planted into the building etc without anyone suspecting anything, also how they had it planned so the planes didn’t set off any explosions etc, also there is no explanation about where all the people on the planes went.

      But i do think discussion on the event is good (on both sides of the theory), and that the people who just ignore all the discussion as people on drugs/are completely crazy etc do have blinkers on; after all it does make sense to see BOTH sides of the argument before you make an informed choice; which a lot of people here don’t seem to have and don’t seem to want to. And calling people names with no actual factual information seems pretty petty and stupid, IMHO.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:08pm | 12/09/11

      One query, then: if the Octopus really wanted people to think it was a genuine terrorist event, why then did it set things up to execute a letter-perfect drop of the building without any tipping over at all? Kinda obvious, isn’t it?

    • gravy says:

      12:20am | 13/09/11

      Like i said before, I don’t have the answers nor do i claim to, but i think asking questions is good and a grown up discussion is also good.

      But just for fun maybe it was set up to fall the way it did to reduce the amount of damage to infrastructure which would cost a buttload to replace, etc.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:40pm | 13/09/11

      @ Gravy ... aaaaand three skyscrapers, two of which were a hundred storeys tall, wouldn’t cost a buttload to replace?

    • gravy says:

      09:04pm | 13/09/11

      Of course it would, I don’t know how much it cost to actually build them in the first place and how much equipment that was lost in the buildings was worth etc, but its sure to be a lot, a hell of a lot.

      Also like to say they didn’t replace the WTC.

      But one could also argue it would cost a lot more and cause more disruption for a longer amount of time to a wider range of businesses etc and also be more unpredictable if they did ‘allow’ the towers to fall wherever they wanted, one could also argue. Infrastructure doesn’t just include buildings too.

      Don’t you just love a good conspiracy; apparently not lol.

    • St. Michael says:

      06:01pm | 14/09/11

      @ gravy:

      “Also like to say they didn’t replace the WTC”

      One World Trade Center would like to talk to you.

      “But one could also argue it would cost a lot more and cause more disruption for a longer amount of time to a wider range of businesses etc and also be more unpredictable if they did ‘allow’ the towers to fall wherever they wanted, one could also argue. Infrastructure doesn’t just include buildings too.”

      But if you go that way you run into a logical inconsistency, too.  Say for a moment it was a deliberate drop.  If, as seems to have happened and as “intended”, you execute a letter-perfect demolition of two hundred-storey skyscrapers in the middle of what is one of the world’s most photographed and heavily-populated areas, complete with explosions going off loud enough for people to hear it from the outside, you are taking a massive, massive risk that everyone will buy the story and nobody will even think for a moment it’s a controlled drop.  And the reward you are hoping for is that it will maybe generate enough anger to make war with *Iraq* a necessity.

      Governments, special ops, etc., do not take risks like that.  There’s nothing more risk-averse than a sitting government.  Witness the hit on OBL.  This was the US’s number one target, responsible for 9/11, on the lam for 10 years, the one guy everyone knew had to be gotten and which most risks could be justified in taking out.  Even with a 60% chance he was there, with supposedly the best special ops troops the US government had access to, Obama was still dithering over whether to go or not.  Look at the faces of the people in the Situation Room: those are not glass-clinkers sitting smugly around ready to absorb bad luck, they’re shit-scared the mission will go wrong and they’ll be wearing the shit when it hits the fan.

      And that’s before you look at all the other uncontrollable variables inherent in a plan to drop the towers after a plane impact, specifically the chance that your plane will hit roughly seven floors above where it should thus making the demolion obvious if your top layer of explosives are seven floors below the plane’s impact.  You have to ensure both planes hit exactly on target, and ensure that every explosive on the tower works as intended despite a plane impact and the massive damage caused.

      Logically it makes more sense to set your explosives for an uncontrolled drop, since that fits with the randomness of the event and doesn’t arouse undue suspicion that it was a deliberate demolition.  This is not what the 9/11 truth movement says.  They are saying because it looks like a perfect demolition drop, that it must have been a controlled demolition.  As I’ve demonstrated, a controlled and perfect drop does not make any logical sense because it advertises that the act was deliberate and an ‘inside job’, so to speak.

    • Emily says:

      07:04pm | 12/09/11

      @Ghost, you seem delusional, saying Andrew because someone called Andrew thanked me for my point of view…the logic behind that is?
      Hmm get a grip.

    • Ghost says:

      07:46pm | 12/09/11

      Speak English Emily…it didn’t even make sense when I put it through Google translator.

    • Mike says:

      08:18pm | 12/09/11

      Yeah how precious eh, the so called conspiracy theorist debunker calling conspiracy theory you with no evidence. Priceless. What’s the matter @Ghost you finding it hard to believe that you’re not in the majority peer pressure group on this one? Oh gee might have to engage that critical thinking and use that dark and rusty part of the brain for a bit. Scary I know. What happens if the conspiracy theorists are right!?

    • John says:

      07:29pm | 12/09/11

      You also need to add this to fact. The towers were not open air like a fireplace. There were floors above and below made out of concrete and no fire is going to burn through that.

      Because of these partitions it would of meant less air! meaning weaker fires! then add the reinforced steel on the outer and super strong inner core, reinforced with concrete! No way that thing was going to collapse. Just look at what happened to the concrete! turned into dust!! dropping concrete from 400 meters up in air doesn’t cause concrete to turn to dust!

      Another thing to realize was that steel was inside the concrete!!! I don’t know if you guy have ever used a jack hammer with concrete and steel inside it. It dam takes all day, and its hard to work to separate it. I’ve never seen anyone throw concrete into a fireplace.

      Look at the facts, inner strong core interlinked, outter core, both these cores support each other. The plane damaged made 20% of outter core of three out of the 100 levels. Then you have the floor, meshed steel with concrete. Then you have the building structure. WTC is not one building! It’s three of them, stuck onto of each other. It’s like having 3 coke cans can’s on top of each other. Try crushing three at once, but remember the WTC towers had an inner core, where a coke can does not! If a coke can had an inner core made out of steel, i don’t think 1 tone of pressure could crush it.

      Now ask your self how much pressure was being put on the floors above where the plane hit? The distribution might of only changed about by 10%. The pressure was basically the sam it had been for 30 years. The slight bit of pressure change would of been like a wind gust, nothing more.

      The official story states steel and concrete and the inner core turned into cheese cause by a little office fire that was starved of oxygen that couldn’t burn concrete and steel! I also forgot the plane removed all the concrete when it hit the towers!! allowed it burn through the steel truss’s which caused them to sag and collapse. But the trusts don’t even support the building, the outer and inner core do!! Then fire melted the inner the core!! ?? lol laughable!!  Do you know how thik those beams were? and that they were fire proofed!! you think a oxygen starved fire could do that!! But the plane too off the fire proofing!! still, office fires can’t melt steel beams or even weaken them.

      Sorry this was no a miracle, it’s pretty clear it was brought down via demolitions. If you can’t believe this, then WTC 7 collapse might give you a little nudge as that collapsed and wasn’t hit by anything. Then you can look at the pentagon, which had a 3.5 x 3.5 meter hold were Boeing airplane went into! amazing isn’t it. The story stinks! It’s stinks bad.

    • Andrew says:

      03:56am | 13/09/11

      You do know John that when a plane hits a building it doesnt leave a perfect symmetical shape of a plane like in the cartoons, you know a big hole with 2 wings to the side. Thye side of the hole has been explain many of times from experts that Im sure know more then you, in fact the truthers hardly even bring bthat up anymore because it has been shown so many times to be BS. You go on about the size of the beams and the concrete etc but somehow you believe they were able to get enough explosive in the building to blow the beams apart and pulverise the concrete, normally you demolish a building you do it from the bottom so the building collapses on itself, the towers clearly collapse from the top, do you have a understanding of how much explosive would be needed, and how it would be impossible to cover these explosives up. As for building 7, firefighters reported a 20 story gap in the side, more then large enough to cause the building to collapse.

    • John says:

      07:48pm | 12/09/11

      More Interesting stuff, it’s seem like the official type of plane that hit the towers was 767. I just read this from wiki.

      “”“Military and government Versions of the 767 serve prominently in a number of military and government applications, with responsibilities ranging from airborne surveillance and refueling to cargo and VIP transport. Most military 767s are derived from the 767-200ER, the longest-range version of the aircraft.[38][121]”“”“”

      VIP, means these planes could be privately owned, and it’s also stated many i witness’s stated that the plane was no commercial jet as it didn’t have any windows. So either 1. The US military was involved using these remote control planes or 2. Privately owned plane was used via remote control to crash into the towers. Then it’s also possible that that either the US military fired a missile at the pentagon, or rogue intelligence agency did it. Personally i think that it was engineered and planned maybe 5 years before the attacks, and that the entire operation was outsourced to a foreign country or foreign intelligence agency, they would do all the work, while a few in the CIA and the government who approved the operation would make sure the path for them would be clear to finish the operation. 

      If one looks at operation north-woods, back in the 60’s, they had a very similar plan which Kennedy said NO. It really makes you wonder how they would approve such an operation. Maybe the US stated it was a national security risk and that the sept11 attacks had to occur in order to get backing of an invasion into the middleast. The Mainstream media played along with it under national security reasons.

    • LC says:

      11:52pm | 12/09/11

      Your first problem: A WIKI. Whom anyone can edit anything onto at anytime without coming close the level of scrutiny people who publish information in journals have to endure. This isn’t middle-years schooling John, you’ll have to do better than that.

      “many i witness’s stated that the plane was no commercial jet as it didn’t have any windows”
      How many of them got a good close look at the plane? Those who did were the lucky ones as far as I’m concerned; they’d have died instantly and not left to suffer being burnt alive or being buried alive under the rubble. If you’re looking at it from the ground, it’s further away and begins to lose details. Pretty basic stuff. You won’t see the little aircraft windows from the ground with a naked eye.

      As for the missile in the Pentagon theory:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wQ2BJsgx0
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk
      Yeah. Sorry to blow that rubbish story out of the water.

      And again, you continue to have the problem of the sheer number of people who’ll have to keep their mouths shut over this, as I have outlined earlier.

      You point to Operation Northwoods, and despite that only being an internal scheme that only the government and the CIA knew about, it was still exposed. If your guess is true, it means that despite 1000’s to 10’000s of people knowing about this, after 15 years not one has said a peep. Very believable…

    • stephen says:

      08:30pm | 12/09/11

      The ‘why’ , which you’ve noted, is not the same as motive, and I cannot believe that, of all the previous attempts and successes the US has incorporated into foreign policy to not have a serious war with the Middle East, why they would concoct this, only to, as you assert, bring on Armageddon.
      Currently, counter terrorism and counter insurgency are the only two concepts of conflict which America is endorsing, and they are now in use.
      There is no need for the shenanigans which you assert.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      10:43pm | 12/09/11

      You need to read more carefully. Firstly I said “9/11 was a staged, false flag operation designed to propel the US and its allies into war for the sake of profit, oil and empire”. Secondly I said “there has been a power grab, using the fear of terrorism as its justification, and I would argue that this was the plan all along”.

      I never said they were intent on bringing on Armageddon.

    • Andrew says:

      03:44am | 13/09/11

      So Hereward why wasnt saddam (or people financed or trained by saddam) blamed for 9/11, why blame the taliban and invade afganistan, not much oil there. If they wanted control of the oil why not blame the country that has the oil, and the invasion of iraq would had been seen as justified.

    • Julia says:

      08:57pm | 12/09/11

      This is just offensive at this time. Shame on thepunch for giving this oxygen.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      10:38pm | 12/09/11

      Shame on you Julia for trying to stifle freedom of speech.

      Attack me all you like, but attacking the people running the publishing platform is below the belt and smacks of fascism.

      Have you looked at the architects and engineers website, or even watched a video of building seven go down?

    • Macon Paine says:

      01:20pm | 13/09/11

      Hereward, get off your high horse and stop being such a damn hypocrite.

      You sensor just about everything you don’t like on your little website 911oz.com.au

      You stifle free speech by forcing no-planers to have a badge on their avatar that says “no planer” and has a link to a website explaining what that is. You stifle free speech by banning numerous CIT or “Pentagon no-planers” from your website simply because you disagreed with them. And yet here you are on this website contradicting yourself by stating:
      “Some have conjectured that the Pentagon may have been hit by something other than a Boeing 757, which is reasonable considering the US government’s refusal to release any video footage from dozens of security cameras, but this view is no longer widely held in the 9/11 truth movement.”
      Indicating that despite the overwhelming evidence that yes Flight 77 did hit the pentagon (including radar data, remains of the victims, remains of the plane, eyewitness testimony, light poles being knocked down) you still doubt that it happened simply because you haven’t seen video of it happening! This says to us that the only reason you banned them is because you know that the theory is damaging to your “movement”, not because you think it’s a load of rubbish but simply because you are worried about negative impact on the “movement”.

      So for you to come on here and whine about “trying to stifle freedom of speech” smacks of rank hypocrisy on your part, shame on you.

    • Emma says:

      09:04pm | 12/09/11

      firstly, this is a majorly disrespectful article to post at this time. secondly, do you not understand that a fully fueled plane is just as good as a bomb? and a plane slamming into a building at hundreds of kms an hour is bound to cause massive structural damage. yes, engineers didn’t think it possible but did they actually have a precedent to compare to?
      I know governments are corrupt, but there is no doubt this was terrorism.

    • gravy says:

      10:08pm | 12/09/11

      duno if i remember correctly but didn’t a bomb get set off at the trader centers by timothy mcveigh(sp)? That bomb sure as hell didn’t even come close to bringing a building down so i think it might be safe to say that a bomb might not bring down the WTC either. Just my very non educated 2c.

    • Andrew says:

      03:45am | 13/09/11

      Yeah gravy very non educated, the building were built in very different ways.

    • Tahlia says:

      02:32am | 14/09/11

      Emma what structural damange was caused to the 80+ floors below that were not hit by a plane? And how does your theory explain Building 7?

    • Andrew says:

      11:16pm | 14/09/11

      Hi Tahlia at 2:32 am on 14-Sep-2011 above

      I’m a different Andrew to the Andrew who posted above at 3:45am on 13-Sep-2011.

      You’ve made a very good point.

      Building WTC 1, which is the North Tower of the Twin Towers in the World Trade Center complex, was 110 storeys in height.  It was hit by a plane between about the 92nd and 98th floors:

      http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc1.html

      Building WTC 2, which is the South Tower of the Twin Towers in the World Trade Center complex, was also 110 storeys in height.  It was hit by a plane between about the 78th and 84th floors:

      http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc2.html

      Near the start of the second paragraph, the following web page states, “The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

      This ring of 47 columns constituted the core strength of each of the Twin Towers, buildings WTC 1 and WTC 2.  Here is further information on these core columns:

      http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

      Even if these core columns in each of the Twin Towers were significantly damaged by the impact of the planes at the points of impact described above, it is absolutely impossible that the 91 floors below the point of impact in the case of building WTC 1 and the 77 floors below the point of impact in the case of building WTC 2 would have collapsed as a result of this damage because the core columns inside these floors were not damaged by the impacts.

      In addition, it is highly unlikely that the fires from the impacts of the planes would have spread more than just a few floors below the points of impact.  It is nonsensical to believe that these fires could adversely influence the structural integrity of the entirety of both buildings so that they collapse spontaneously in the manner in which they did collapse, hurling debris in a wide radius around the buildings and generating a massive amount of dust constituting the now-pulverised concrete of the buildings themselves.

    • Mark Young says:

      09:07pm | 12/09/11

      I’m really offended that you have published this.
      The dross in this article has been completely rejected by credible independent sources.
      The more oxygen we give this rubbish the longer it will live on.

    • John says:

      10:22pm | 12/09/11

      Whats creditable? Obama? Bush? Blair? Brown? Western political are all liars!  They are all on a 30 pieces of silver a week wage from the international bankers who want to control and rule the world. Their in power not because of their skills, honesty and love of the people and nation, they are all in power to because they are corruptible and controllable.  Just look at Clinton’s track record, his wife’s, bush’s and Obama! Obama boy from Chicago!! Reputation of corruptness. This is a world of evil and darkness. You think Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama would be carpet bombing Libya and supporting al-qaeda if they were good people?

    • Emily says:

      09:10pm | 12/09/11

      @ ghost, I put my words through a translator also and couldn’t work it out. Note to self, don’t reply to threads with bleary eyes via mobile phone..
      Anyhow this time in english:
      Ghost, your delusional and paranoid, in fact your bordering on conspiracy theorist, chill out and go back to focussing on the facts.
      Not the facts the ‘truthers’ give, the facts that YOU can work out for yourself. YOU have the ability to research this subject and come to your own educated opinion. Just stick with peer reviewed papers and you will stay on track.
      I believe in you! Just don’t deviate from the science.

    • John says:

      10:10pm | 12/09/11

      Interesting poll!! I think it game over for the establishment. I suspect when Obama talked about the official 9/11 story to millions of Americans on 10 year anniversary of the US government sponsored terror attack his approval rating feel more.

      Check this out

      “According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

      “Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

      Telling the truth 16%

      Hiding something 53%

      Mostly lying 28%

      Not sure 3%”“

      I think the establishment is game over! Revolution might be coming!

    • Gary says:

      10:49pm | 12/09/11

      I don’t have a Bachelor’s degree in BS from the University of YouTube, but I can easily find the flawed logic behind the ‘False-Flag’ hypothesis. I’ve been a participant in many threads on this subject and I’ve found that arguing with idiots is futile.
      One particularly venomous fool believed that a form of Tesla pulse ray was used to destroy the WTC~I laughed for ages after that clown’s comments.

    • Tahlia says:

      02:36am | 14/09/11

      Classic straw man argument. One person form a looselhy formed “group” said something crazy so everything that is said by eveyone in the group is crazy. Like saying: a know a Greens voter sho killed his mother. Therefore all Greens voters are mother-killers.

    • mark says:

      11:00pm | 12/09/11

      at least alex jones is entertaining

    • ChrispyT says:

      11:18pm | 12/09/11

      @ Emily - be careful with YOUR typing. YOU’RE making us fact-speakers look bad. And be careful with too, too.

      //
      Unfortunately, Hereward didn’t mention a key point: That there was a COUNTDOWN to the demolition of WTC7. The fire fighters and rescue people had cordoned off the building, gotten everyone back from it and were saying ‘Get back, get back. Stand behind the cordon! The building’s going to be taken down! OK people, any minute now it’s gonna come down’.
      I saw the countdown on youtube years ago. - It exists and it proves that it was a planned and organised controlled demolition.

      This is additional to the basic fact that the only way you can make a steel framed building fall straight down into itself is to do it in a controlled way with expertly placed detonators. Yes - it’s an iron clad fact and no amount of creative thinking or explaining away can alter it. Just take a breath and deal with it. Not to belittle people, but worldviews take time and self -awareness to change. You can’t ignore facts because they are contrary to your worldview. You have to experience the disequilibrium created by acceptance of the new info, and then come through it with a different understanding. Psychological issues are the main obstacle to ppl examining the evidence.

      Yes folks, controlled demolition is the ONLY way you can make a steel framed building fall into itself in . No - other - way - full stop!

      Jinky, ad hominems attacks don’t work. Address your own question and seek the answer. You’ll find that there was lots of unusual activity inside the buildings going on in the weeks and months before the event. I think the planners had more inconspicuous materials in their employ than boxy red ACME detonating plungers.

    • toostoopidtoargue says:

      04:59am | 13/09/11

      Australian is lagging behind in the world I guess. You are all about 5 years behind and just looking at it now. All your arguments and the use of debunking sites means that you’re grasping at straws. Either you understand and can get over you’re childish “the US govt wouldn’t do that” mentality, and are stuck in the world where every thing is rainbows and apple pie, or you’re in the real world with every one else who understands that powerful men do evil things. Go back to sleep…you’re nothing but sheep who are afraid of the truth.

    • Gary Pezet says:

      09:51am | 13/09/11

      Some are just sheep who will believe any conspiracy promulgated by those with a view to making money. Go back to sleep…

    • LC says:

      10:55am | 13/09/11

      So in that case, I guess you have peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals to back up your version of events?

      If so, present them.

    • kenj says:

      05:33am | 13/09/11

      It is not necessary to advance an alternative 911 explanation. It is sufficient to show that the official account does not meet the standards of public accountability that we expect of a modern democracy and that we are entitled to reject the official explanation (with all its evidentiary holes) until a recognizably independent inquiry is held.

      Here are some of the discrepancies:

      (1) Senator Bob Graham, Head of the 911 Joint Congressional Inquiry from Feb - Dec 2002, was interviewed on the PBS Lehrer Hour in 2002:

      “I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States…. I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing—although that was part of it—by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it’s turned over to the archives, but that’s 20 or 30 years from now.”

      The implications of this claim are quite profound. It means that the 19 hijackers were not operating in isolation. There was a support base, and others who were aware of the impending attacks. Senator Graham later went on to identify Saudi Arabia as the nation he was talking about.

      (2) The NIST report, on its own admission, studied the collapse of the twin towers only up to the point of collapse. Dr. James Quintiere, the former head of NIST’s Fire Science Division, who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, called for an independent review of the WTC collapse investigation. “I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at [that fire and damage from the attacks brought down the buildings] is questionable.” That’s NIST’s own senior investigator. So why should I take the media’s uncritical endorsement of NIST credibly?

      (3) According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the 911 attacks took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA). Quite simply, three of these aircraft were engaged in no commercial activity for nine months prior to 911 and on their very first day back in service were hijacked. No explanation has been provided these missing nine months. If the people are comfortable with this lack of accountability on the history of these aircraft then good luck to them.

      (4) The FBI oversaw all of the evidence management in regard to all of the 911 crash sites. The US government, on its own admission, undertook no inquiries to confirm the identities of any of the aircraft. The FBI alleges that it collected 95% (60 tonnes) of the remains of Flight 93 from Shankesville yet no photographic evidence has been presented supporting this claim. Further, again on the public admission of the FBI, they returned the remains of Flight 93 to the owner, United Airlines, three weeks after 911. I know of no murder investigation of any seriousness that divests itself of serious crime scene evidence just three weeks after the crime.

      (5) In August this year, Richard Clarke, former chief White House counter terrorism adviser in both the Clinton and subsequent Bush administrations, claimed that the CIA deliberately concealed the presence in the US of two Saudi members of Al Qaeda (Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar) who participated in the 911 attacks. According to Clarke, and other sources, up to 50 CIA agents deliberately concealed from the FBI the arrival and presence of these two terrorists in the US, terrorists who were known to the CIA to be under FBI arrest warrant.

      According to Clarke: “There was a high level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share that information.”  Deserves an explanation, don’t you think?

      I have quoted to you impeccable US high level sources calling into question key aspects of the official version of 911. Moreover, these views have been in the public arena and published in mainstream media for quite some time. I could give you at least six more credible, authority-backed, serious objections.

      The Us people have allowed their government to fob them with a story—just an unchallenged, untested, unscientific story—about 9/11. Then they wonder how it becomes possible that people can be snatched off the streets and sent to torture gulags. The answer of course, is simple. They have settled for blindly accepting anything told to them. That’s why they sat there while the US 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections were stolen—and no one said a word. You want an easy life unchallenged by having to stand up for your rights?—You got one.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:25pm | 13/09/11

      “According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the 911 attacks took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA). Quite simply, three of these aircraft were engaged in no commercial activity for nine months prior to 911 and on their very first day back in service were hijacked. No explanation has been provided these missing nine months. If the people are comfortable with this lack of accountability on the history of these aircraft then good luck to them.”

      Wrong on most counts.  When you look closer at the data is when this argument comes apart.

      Let’s just take Flight 175, or specifically, fuselage number N612UA, which was the plane you’re talking about.  See this page for more detail: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306111.shtml  175 did fly after December 2000.  Yes, it has some holes in its flight history, but it has regular flights in September of 2001.  No sudden appearance out of thin air.  As for why there are holes in the flight history, there’s any number of explanations other than prepping as a black ops suicide mission: “There are several possible answers. The most obvious one is that N612UA simply was not used. Or, it was being used for scheduled, domestic, non-stop flights, but the Tail number was not accurately reported to the BTS. Also possible is that it may have been used for scheduled flights with stops. Another possibility is that it was either being serviced, repaired, or a combination of the two. Finally, it may have been used either to make unscheduled non-stop flights or unscheduled flights with stops.”

      Off one of your own truther websites:

      “Guys, this story has been debunked ... the airlines must have only filed their information on a yearly basis at the end of each year or something and not done it at the end 2001 coz of the attacks.. the flights were used many times during 2001 as noted by people on the JREF forum.

      Go to the BTS inquiry page.
      Check “All statistics”.
      Flight 175 regularly flew out of San Francisco, so choose that as the Origin Airport.
      Choose United Airlines as the airline.
      Check September for the month.
      Check All Days to see information for all of September.
      Check 2001 for the year.
      Click Submit. And wait (that’s a big query).

      When it comes back, use your browser to search for Flight 175’s tail number, N612UA. And look! It flew out of SF on the 1st, the 5th, the 7th, and the 10th, and (surprise surprise) there are no further flights.

      N612UA aka Flight 175 at JFK in April 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/168079/L/
      Same plane at LAX, August 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/United Airlines/Boeing 767-222/0188174/L

      N334AA aka Flight 11 at O’Hare in July 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-767-223-ER/1502300/
      In Stockholm, August 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-767-223-ER/0188142/

      N644AA aka Flight 77 at Miami in Feb 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-757-223/0982095/
      At Boston in August 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-757-223/0982095/

      N591UA aka Flight 93 at Newark on September 8th, 2001: http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Boeing-757-222/0188157/

      You haven’t looked into the detail.  Like most truthers, you go for tiny technicalities as if it means something.  I haven’t got time to go debunking the rest of the stuff you’ve put up which probably is secondhand from truther websites, but this small sample probably goes a long way towards establishing the credibility (or lack thereof) of your data.

      And lest we forget: this is because I don’t blindly accept what I’m told.

    • Lincoln says:

      10:02am | 13/09/11

      No, Hereward, 9/11 truthers aren’t standing up and saying “two plus two makes four”. What they’re saying is, two plus two makes the square root of delusional paranoia to the power of batsh#t crazy. (NB: apparently “Mathematicians for 9/11 Truth” calculate that figure to be 911 - it’s true, I saw it on You-Tube). You may like to envision yourself, Hereford, as a crusader of TRUTH for future generations (like Robert Redford in All the Presidents Men, without the dimples) - one of the “good people” trying to “do something”. But all you and your mates are REALLY doing, is making a terrible tragedy all the more painful for its victims. And hopefully, THAT’S how future generations will remember you.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      10:32am | 13/09/11

      @Lincoln,

      Does hurling insults and deliberately miss-spelling my name make your argument stronger?

      Have you looked at any of the information?

      Can you muster any form of rebuttal?

    • LC says:

      10:57am | 13/09/11

      He doesn’t need to Hereward, what you have to say has been throughly rebutted and argued against many times over already.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      12:04pm | 13/09/11

      So what are you presenting LC, the argument from consensus or the argument from authority?

      Both are logical fallacies anyway.

      The point is, you and your mates cannot make an argument, so you don’t effectively participate in the discussion at all.

      You’re just standing on the sidelines cheering for your team and hurling rotten eggs at the other side.

    • LC says:

      12:54pm | 13/09/11

      No logical fallacy Hereward. Just fact. Read the above comments and replies to them. Your points ARE being debated and in a few cases refuted earlier in this blog. Linclon could argue too, but I’m sure that anything he says someone else has already bought up and argued against earlier.

      We ARE making an arguement. Because it merely disagrees with your thoughts on the matter does not mean they are “standing on the sidelines cheering for your team and hurling rotten eggs at the other side.”

    • subotic says:

      10:25am | 13/09/11

      Mulder, Scully, where are you when we need you?

    • ChrispyT says:

      10:46am | 13/09/11

      conspiracy theorist blah blah… yadda yadda yadda ‘crazy!’ ooga booga ‘aircraft fuel is highly explosive!’ nurkle nurkle toot - I wouldn’t believe it if it was true! schlep schlep schlep - no one can keep a secret… etc.

      @LC at 11:51pm

      //You point to Operation Northwoods, and despite that only being an internal scheme that only the government and the CIA knew about, it was still exposed. If your guess is true, it means that despite 1000’s to 10’000s of people knowing about this, after 15 years not one has said a peep. Very
      believable…//

      OK, we need to address factual inaccuracies first, then perhaps others can deal with your ‘why would?/how could?’ conjecturing.

      The secret Northwoods documents were not exposed in Kennedy’s lifetime or even within 15 years.  Certainly people wondered why he sacked his entire Joint Chiefs of Staff but they had no way to know that it was because the JCoS had planned to murder US citizens as a pretext to war with Cuba.
      The Northwoods document was declassified on 18 November 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. That’s after 35 years of being secret.

      And about keeping mouths shut - do you think people who commit murder like to brag about it? How about those who are accessories to murder? How about people who are blackmailed - worse still, how bout ppl who are dead?

      And there have been plenty of whistleblowers on 911:  Coleen Rowley, Cynthia Cooper and Sibel Edmonds

      Just because you can’t see them, doesn’t mean they’re not there. You might have to open your eyes and look.

    • LC says:

      08:07pm | 13/09/11

      People would blab not because they wish to brag about the wholesale slaughter of civilians from a wide range of countries during 9/11, if they were to blab, it’d be out of guilt or their willingness to let the populace know. Now some of these mouths that must remain shut (FBI/CIA/Pentagon/Military personnel) are able to easily spread the word while staying pretty much anonymous, particularly in the digital age. Wikileaks, for example, have released 100,000s of confidential papers. But alas, there are none which prove that 9/11 was indeed and inside job. If this was indeed the case, why wasn’t it amongst the first papers to be leaked?

      As for your list of whistleblowers, one blew the whistle on improperly translated documents from Turkey which hinted at a terror attack on American soil, one blew the whistle on corruption within the FBI that had very little to do with 9/11 and the other didn’t seem to have anything to do with 9/11 at all. None of them blew the whistle on the government being behind 9/11. There’s a difference.
      (And for the record I do believe that the FBI or the CIA could’ve done more to prevent the attack)

    • Andrew says:

      08:11pm | 14/09/11

      Hi LC at 8:07pm no 13-Sep-2011

      It is highly unlikely that anybody who is involved in bringing down the Twin Towers and killing about 3,000 people is going to admit their involvement and “blab” because they know that under the law of the United States of America, they would either be sentenced to execution or jail for life without parole.  The American public would not tolerate any sentence lesser than these.

    • LC says:

      09:59pm | 14/09/11

      As I said Andrew, for such a conspiracy to get off the ground, there would have to be people involved whom have the knowledge and capacity to blow the whistle on it without revealing who their identity, ie: CIA, Pentagon personnel. A whistleblower may be nothing more than a disgruntled employee whom may or may not have anything to do with it. They leak the information as a final act of defiance and then fall off the map. A recording/transcript from a secret meeting, or an secret memo would be enough to start an investigation. The whole Bush government would be indicted, because y’know, you keep claiming they are the ones behind it, “9/11 was planned by the Government” and all that jazz. The CIA and Pentagon would likely get away with it because they were acting under orders (but the FBI could be sued for letting it happen and doing nothing to stop it). And if nothing further happens after such a leak, well, that’s why the US’s 2nd amendment exists.

      Also, don’t forget, we are talking about governments who cannot even keep a break-in at a hotel or thier sex lives quiet, in addition to two mainstream political parties so opposed to one-another (moreso than Labor and the Coalition) one would do anything and stoop to any low to bring the other down. Something like this would be GOLD for the Democrat’s dirt squad. Keeping a secret of this magnitude in such an environment is bordering on impossible.

    • Andrew says:

      11:33pm | 14/09/11

      Hi LC

      You’re just spouting speculation.  What is not speculation is the mountain of physical evidence which shows that all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were collapsed using explosives.

      You’re ignoring all of the physical evidence staring you in the face so that you can petulantly say, “They couldn’t have blown up the buildings because somebody who was involved would have blown the whistle by now and let us know, if that’s what really happened”.  That line of reasoning is not conclusive evidence that the buildings were not brought down with explosives. 

      You’re either in serious denial or you know that these buildings were blown up and you’re trying to stop the truth from coming out by posting comments on this article.

    • LC says:

      11:06am | 15/09/11

      A “mountain of evidence” pointing to a controlled demolition you say? OK. Present it. Oh and not something from a truther website or youtube video. Provide something from a reputable scientific or arthiectual publication, please.

      As for that last statment, that’s funny. I didn’t know that the US Black Ops Demolition Crew, the CIA, the US government or anyone else who would’ve been involved hired non-US nationals under the age of 18 (I was 17 when 9/11 occured). After all, you did state further up the page no-one knew about it as it would’ve been done “between the hours of 10pm and 5am when there were very few people in the buildings” so how else would I “know” about it? Now who’s “spouting speculation”!

    • Jonathan says:

      12:03pm | 13/09/11

      Although often cited by people as evidence of a false flag operation, the ‘Reichstag Fire’ was not set up by the Nazis. Although it gave the National Socialists a good pretext in clamping down on Communists and other anti-German elements, the vast majority of historians agree that the arsonist was in fact a Communist not commissioned by the Nazi regime.

      As for the ‘truther’ movement, i largely agree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment; that it is illogical to believe that any government or cabal in modern times would either risk or have the competency to pull it off undiscovered. Despite being Jewish, he even says there is more evidence that The Holocaust is a conspiracy than 911(not that he believes it, but he uses this simply as an argument that any large scale event can have infinite holes found it using logical fallacies and the ‘unexplained’, ie, there is no visual evidence of deliberate genocide at Auschwitz, just lots bodies of starved Jewish POWs).

    • tahlia says:

      02:41am | 14/09/11

      The Nazi’s said Poland opened fire at german soldeirs at their border. Poland denied it but of course Germany used it as a pretext to invade Poland and futher Hitler and the Nazi’s aim of getting “lining space” in eastern Europe.
      Oh, and the Reichstag fire was most certainly a Nazi Ruse.

    • Pando says:

      12:37pm | 13/09/11

      ‘Secretive, cunning, devious, subversive terrorists’.  Meditate on the adjectives for a short time, and you’ll know why the truth is elusive in the ‘war on terror’,.  In times of peace when people deride honesty and take advantage of the honest, the end result is lies, coverups and eventually if it gets out of control, open conflict. Is it worth going to war over the doubts you might have about the official story, Mr Fenton? Sleeping dogs might be better where they are.

    • Andrew says:

      09:24pm | 14/09/11

      Pando, so what you’re basically saying is, “We should accept the lies of 9/11, because if we press those at the top for the truth based on what we know, they’ll probably lash out and start a military war or a financial crisis to try to divert the attention of the public from the lies of 9/11”.

      This is cowardly reasoning.  This planet will never heal until the truth comes out.

    • Josh says:

      01:42pm | 13/09/11

      What a fantastic article! its about time the main steam media explored 9/11 with a skeptical eye instead of just parroting the same old propaganda.

      Thanks for posting this.
      Great read.

    • cynic says:

      02:50pm | 13/09/11

      The truth is out there. A pity these misguided and deLusional hand on ####### cannot accept the real truth. Fact is often stranger than fiction but these fools live in their own fools’ world trapped in front of computer screens and think that is real time life. PLEASE GET A BARBIE DOLL AND GO BACK TO YOUR COT WHERE THE KIDDIES BELONG.

    • Dave Britton says:

      03:29pm | 13/09/11

      Pembo, what are you doing giving this tosh a run?

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      11:08pm | 13/09/11

      Posted on 09.12.11
      “Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham on Monday called on the U.S. government to reopen its investigation into 9/11 after a report found that links between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers were never disclosed by the FBI to the 2002 joint Congressional intelligence committee investigating the attacks”

      “In the final report of the congressional inquiry, there was a chapter related primarily to the Saudi role in 9/11 that was totally censored, every word of the chapter has been withheld from the public,” Graham said on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show.
      http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/former-sen-bob-graham-calls-for-new-911-investigation/

    • Macon Paine says:

      10:23am | 14/09/11

      So Hereward, how does this support the claim of an inside job? Care to comment or are you just going to spam and run?

      If anything it indicates the Saudi’s may have had more to do with 9/11 than revealed to the public. Thats hardly going to change the narrative of what happened on 9/11. And it certainly doesn’t support your ridiculous claims of thermite and controlled demolition, no plane at the pentagon etc ad nauseum.

      You see, if you were serious about 9/11, this kind of stuff (in relation to Saudi involvement) is what your pathetic doltish movement should be concentrating on, instead your all rabbiting on with pure fantasy about a laughable “peer reviewed” thermite paper (that was “peer reviewed” by the authors of the paper and has not been replicated, nor submitted to legitimate journals for verification!), operation northwoods, PNAC, spamming forums with controlled demolition nonsense about “path of most resistance” which is known to the rest of us as down! Claiming that WTC7 was a CD because it kind of vaguely looked like one when you haven’t taken the time to read the NIST WTC7 report which would explain to you in great detail why you are wrong.

      Oh well I know none of this will get through to you and your cultists, so please carry on, at least you will be safe in the knowledge that you provide the rest of us with almost unlimited hilarity!

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      03:42pm | 14/09/11

      @macon, I posted the link above because it is newsworthy and important to the whole field of 9./11 research.

      The Saudi connection to 9/11 is real and important, but my article was necessarily limited in scope.

      i can’t help wondering why you feel the need to lace all your comments with hate-speech? This makes dialogue impossible and it’s really the mark of some who is LOSING the argument.

      You’ve been accorded a high degree of respect yet you dish out hate and derision every time you post. This is the mark of a loser.

    • Jas says:

      09:20pm | 14/09/11

      ill comment if i may….

      for most people, when they understand that a building fell at freefall speed, through the path of most resistance, it becomes obvious that the resistance, must have somehow been removed, in order for free fall to occur. others need it explained in a little more detail.

      for those people, it is necessary to explain that in order for freefall to occur, all resistance, across the entire building, over several floors, must have been taken out, simultaneously.

      the only, logical explanation, is via controlled demolition.

      if YOU read the NIST report, you would see that they only deal with the point of initiation of collapse, and do not cover freefall. they actually denied it, only to begrudgingly admit to it after being shown evidence.

      not only that, the computer modelling that they did, they have refused to release the input data, so that noone can recreate their model to test NISTS theory.  hmmm   I guess THEY actually understand the significance of freefall, even if you dont.

      if you can find in the NIST report where they explain freefall, please post the relevent part here, because the only explanation of freefall from NIST i can find, is, “we dont know”

      http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/nists-admission-of-freefall-does-it.html

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:54am | 15/09/11

      @ Hereward

      “The Saudi connection to 9/11 is real and important, but my article was necessarily limited in scope.”

      Limited in scope? Yet you managed to bring up the no plane at the pentagon, “near free fall speed”, patsies, WTC7, the ridiculous thermite paper etc etc. And you couldn’t find 1 paragraph to bring up the possible Saudi connection? Turn it up Hereward. My comment from earlier “You see, if you were serious about 9/11, this kind of stuff (in relation to Saudi involvement) is what your pathetic doltish movement should be concentrating on,” seems to have been right on the money.

      “i can’t help wondering why you feel the need to lace all your comments with hate-speech? This makes dialogue impossible and it’s really the mark of some who is LOSING the argument.”

      What exactly is your definition of hate speech? I may have used derision and ridicule but nowhere did I use hate speech, thats a ridiculous claim on your part. Besides, every claim you make in this article has been refuted online, the information is there if you are prepared to overcome your confirmation bias and look at it but you won’t and that is why we use derision and ridicule.

      “You’ve been accorded a high degree of respect yet you dish out hate and derision every time you post. This is the mark of a loser.”

      Derision when justified but not hate. “Mark of a loser”? Please, more like mark of the annoyed. The mark of the loser is being confronted with evidence that refutes your claims and then denying it and retreating back into fantasy.

    • Macon Paine says:

      12:29pm | 15/09/11

      @jas

      “for most people, when they understand that a building fell at freefall speed,”
      Only for a very small portion of the collapse, I will explain later.
      “through the path of most resistance,”
      Otherwise known as down due to gravity, were else would it fall? Up?
      “it becomes obvious that the resistance, must have somehow been removed, in order for free fall to occur.”
      Yes it was removed by the collapse of a critical support column due to thermal expansion (caused by raging unfought fires) and damage caused by debris from the WTC tower collapse.
      “for those people, it is necessary to explain that in order for freefall to occur, all resistance, across the entire building, over several floors, must have been taken out, simultaneously.”
      As I said it was a CRITICAL support column.
      “the only, logical explanation, is via controlled demolition.”
      Wrong. Due to the lack of supporting evidence for your hypothesis, the NIST WTC7 report is the only logical explanation.
      “if YOU read the NIST report, you would see that they only deal with the point of initiation of collapse,”
      Think about what you wrote. Do I really need to respond to that?
      “actually denied it, only to begrudgingly admit to it after being shown evidence.”
      They did not deny it, they asked for evidence to support that claim. Then when they had the evidence they took it on board. That is how science works.
      “not only that, the computer modelling that they did, they have refused to release the input data, so that noone can recreate their model to test NISTS theory.  hmmm   I guess THEY actually understand the significance of freefall, even if you dont.”
      Not true, they have released some of it. The remainder they will not release because it could jeopardise public safety. I would like to see them release the remainder but would that really change your opinion? Lets face it even if they released it all and it makes perfect sense to 99.99% of people qualified to understand the data you Truthers would simply call it faked.

    • Ghost says:

      06:27pm | 14/09/11

      Hey there you are Hereward!

      Come back to the other blog and answer the questions.  You know the blog, where you said you would debate the issues anywhere and anytime?  We are all waiting for your response, don’t be a coward.  Man up!  It’s okay to say you don’t know or even you are completely wrong.  We won’t mind.  It’s time to find a new purpose in life, this one is done and dusted, you aren’t going to achieve anything.

    • Jas says:

      07:30pm | 14/09/11

      and ghost, anything less than a proper independent transparent investigation with subpoena powers isnt going to achieve anything.

      man up ghost, at least hereward is putting his name, face, reputation on the line, why dont you do the same and debate him on live tv..  or even a youtube..

      go on, dont be scared.

      by the way..  do you now agree that thermite can indeed cut through steel? lol.

      done and dusted.

    • Ghost says:

      08:46pm | 14/09/11

      Well Jas,

      I see you have to fight Hereward’s battles for him…I pray for the sake of the organisation you aren’t the brains of the outfit?

      Tell me why YOUR MAN says it cannot BURN steel?

      The only dust, is between your ears!

    • Andrew says:

      09:57pm | 14/09/11

      Hi Ghost at 8:46pm on 14-Sep-2011

      Please provide a reference to the web page where Hereward Fenton states that thermite or nanothermite cannot burn steel.

    • Ghost says:

      07:19am | 15/09/11

      @Andrew

      Step away from the Nanothermite, read the blog and follow the links that have already been provided to you.

    • Dodge says:

      11:28am | 14/09/11

      Shouldn’t there be some form of quality control here?

      This article is an exercise in what is cripping the world - nonsense being spoken about with such conviction that people are drawn to believe the utterly non-sensical.

      Truthers can pretty much diaf, like most conspiracists.

      Perhaps when one of these grand conspiracies talked about in the 20th century is revelaed as truth we could consider this kind of nonsense, but lo, there are no smoking guns in the conspiratorial space.

    • John says:

      09:44pm | 14/09/11

      I’ve come to the conclusion that the west’s news media and it’s historical perspective of history is usually a lie. Have you ever wondered why the west is bombarded with fictional television and fictional Hollywood movies, fictional cartoons, music videos and the news media? It keeps people in the dark, blind state of reality. It’s creates an uniformed, powerless mob of mass’s. Ever wonder why people work all week and never seem to get anywhere in life? Just maybe think? You might be a brainwashed slave?

    • ChrispyT says:

      11:11pm | 14/09/11

      @LC - 08:07pm | 13/09/11

      remorse and willingness to let the people know. Ummm, what forum would allow anyone to do that?
      Since you’re speculating wildly and ignoring the basic physical properties of steel structured buildings let me join you with a my own speculative hypothetical:

      If anyone tried to come out in any mainstream forum and say - ‘I was involved with the elevator upgrade operation that applied paint based nanothermite on every beam juncture inside the tower’ -, they’d be ridiculed and called a ‘crazy conspiracy theorist’.

      More likely, they’d be uniformly ignored by the MSM, yet watched and followed closely by the alternative research community for signs he was a disinfo artist or the real deal. And if he was the real deal, the MSM would still continue to ignore reporting on it, as they do the countdown to and certifiably controlled demolition of WTC building 7.

    • LC says:

      01:35pm | 15/09/11

      As I said above, the avenuses they would realease the information through would be sites like wikileaks. Additionally, they could mail the required infromation to as many mainstream media outlets as possible. They wouldn’t use 4chan or somewhere like that, because a mere claim there is borderline-impossible to verify either way, and would be a waste of their time and a risk for no gain.

      As for building 7 rubbish (not again), it’s quite thoughly explained here. And something that you turthers have so far failed to explain, is that if the WTC was indeed a controlled demolition intended as a false-flag attack, why would they have demolished building 7 without it being hit with a plane? That would expose their shenannigans for what were instantly. The conspirators would have to be drunk and high to allow this to go ahead.
      So taking that into account, yeah sorry, I’ll belive the NIST who have at least some clue what they’re talking about over your ideas, thanks. smile
      PS. At the bottom-left of your post, there is a “reply” button. Please use it, it helps keep your replies in one place and makes them easier for people to find and follow.

    • LC says:

      02:05pm | 15/09/11

      http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

      Another report which goes further and looks at whether explosives could have been involved in the destruction of WTC 7. They found that no, explosives could not be involved for several reasons.

    • ChrispyT says:

      09:22pm | 17/09/11

      Great article, Hereward.

      hands up who thinks LC should get a new day job. Trolling thepunch and spurting nonsense all day can’t be too fulfilling.

      btw - NIST only talks about the demise of wtc7 until the so called ‘collapse iniation point’ .They use this little word device to escape from actually explaining how all the structural steel - which had until then always been expected to remain strong - suddenly, inexplicably synchronously disintegrated.

      It can’t be explained so the didn’t even try.

    • LC says:

      01:56pm | 18/09/11

      While the NIST looked mostly into what bought about the collapse (in short: Fires started by the collapse of WTC 1&2 burning out of control for hours, helped by a sprinkler system with too many single-point failure opportunities) the NIST DOES look into the collapse until the start of the global collapse (and it’s right there in the damn paper I linked for you, starting on the bottom of page 95). But hey, if that’s not good enough for you, the building’s collapse has been looked into by others.

      To repeat myself:
      “yeah sorry, I’ll believe the NIST [and others] who have at least some clue what they’re talking about over your ideas, thanks. smile

      Oh and as a PS:
      Hey, hands up if you think ChrispyT should look up the definition of “internet troll”. (HINT: It does not mean someone who disagrees with you in an argument). And while we’re at it, hands up if you think that if the kind of crap ChrispyT spouts in his first paragraph is all he has left, he has nothing.

    • LC says:

      05:37pm | 18/09/11

      *Sigh*

      Did you ACTUALLY read the report in my second reply? They have a portion of it dedicated to how the building collapsed, starting on page 95.  If you didn’t, I’ll summarize it for you. The fires, likely sparked by falling debris from WTC 1’s collapse, had had been burning uncontrolled for hours. After being constantly by these fires over the course of this time, column 79 buckled, dragging the floors above it down, taking the east penthouse with it. Unable to handle the increased load, columns 80 and 81 gave way too and from there columns 76,77 and 78 went as well, meaning truss 2 and most of truss 1 was gone. From there all the remaining columns, unable to handle the extra weight, buckled east-to-west, causing the building to collapse.

      And if that not good enough for you, there is always reports by others which seems to have come to the same conclusion.

      That first paragraph is so stupid and childish it’s not worth a response, other than possibly this: Go and find out what “internet troll” means, oh, and you’ll find isn’t merely someone who disagrees with you. If this kind of crap is all you have left, then frankly you’ve got nothing.

    • ChrispyT says:

      06:57pm | 20/09/11

      LC, you’re not a troller I admit. You’ve been civil and nice… I was just cranky. bad day, pay not in bank yet etc..

      The NIST report is full of distortions and mental gymnastics. No amount of explaining can remove the fact that
      1. the video of buidling 7 exactly resembles a controlled demolition, (not a fire initated collapse)
      2. The countdown went live over emergency radio - all police and firefighters with radios heard it
      3. There’s video footage of the countdown
      4. There’s plenty of video footage of people who witnessed the countdown talking about their experience
      - - -
      6 of the 10 commissioners of the 9/11 commission report have said that the commission was set up to fail. Condi Rice’s friend and co-author Philip Zelikov was the man in control of what went before the commission and was allowed in the final report. Bush and Cheney testified together, behind closed doors and off the record.
      Cheney has said numerous conflicting things about where he was and what he was doing on the morning of 9/11.

      The main reason ppl are so resistant to these facts is - It is a worldview issue. Most ppl have faith in government and the verity of news reported on TV. Most ppl have no inkling that their emotions are twisted and pulled to achieve emotional support for war or other political expediencies. The mainstream media and TV in particular function as a perception shaper. ppl believe whatever comes across - it’s to do with the brain wave state achieved by watching the refresh frame pattern. TV creates a trance that aids reception of the message on an emotional and subliminal level.

      The facts are that Liars abound. The perception shapers don’t want thinkers who are active, they want believers who sit and are passive. They want us to support war. Whether they’re politicians with knowledge (like Giuliani, Cheney or Condi Rice) or CIA asset reporters (they do exist, do some research) pushing a ready to go ‘official story’. Others are not involved but aid the conspirators. They’re peons just doing their jobs. Eg- newsreporters simply reading off teleprompters as the script rolls in from Reuters or AP.
      The MSM perception shapers won the masses’ unconditional support to go into Afghanistan and wage war (and they were already there days before).

      But points one to four are the pertinent ones in this thread. I’d like people to acknowledge the later stuff with a view to understanding ‘why those crazy ppl believe in stuff that’s so outrageous and not on TV’.

      PEACE

    • Andrew says:

      12:07am | 15/09/11

      Here’s a very funny 5-minute video which shows that the official story surrounding 9/11 is one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

      The musical introduction to this video lasts about 14 seconds.

    • Jas says:

      09:09am | 15/09/11

      lol - thats great! - the funniest thing about that though, is that although people, and i use that term loosely, like ghost, ( fitting really, as he really is a bit of a gutless no body ) can not refute one single thing in that video, yet he will cling to his special conspiracy theory, while denouncing people who disagree, and point out these factual evidence, as conspiracy theorists.

      the saddest thing about all that though, is the moronic apparitions that wander the ether world - with their mournful moanings appearing on internet forums like tears from a statue of the virgin mary..  are too bloody stupid to understand the points being made

      and are doomed to wander aimless, lost, for perpetuity, in their own little world of moronic hypocrisy.

      and they vote.

    • PT Ryan says:

      04:10pm | 15/09/11

      I think some of the posters here should watch the 2009 doco New World Order, which follows the lives of several conspiracy theorists (including the redoubtable Alex Jones) through all their proseltyzing and activism. You get an idea of the conspiracy theorist mindset and the psychology behind the Truthers and “Illuminati” types. The full film is up on youtube.

    • PT Ryan says:

      04:10pm | 15/09/11

      I think some of the posters here should watch the 2009 doco New World Order, which follows the lives of several conspiracy theorists (including the redoubtable Alex Jones) through all their proseltyzing and activism. You get an idea of the conspiracy theorist mindset and the psychology behind the Truthers and “Illuminati” types. The full film is up on youtube.

    • Andrew says:

      11:30pm | 15/09/11

      All of you guys posting on this thread - trying to drum up support for the official story - you have a serious problem and you know it.  That problem for you is that once people realise that 9/11 was a set-up they never go back to supporting the official story - never.  So we keep getting stronger and you keep getting weaker.

      What are you going to do?  The truth is going to be known by everybody eventually.

      The methods you use on this blog to try to discredit the evidence and discredit the truth are shameful.  Many of you are fully aware that 9/11 was a set-up and you’re posting on this thread to try to cover it up.

    • 911TRUTHINATOR says:

      02:10am | 16/09/11

      Andrew keeps promoting the 1500 architecs and engineers for 911truth videos,these morons are under the leadership of richard “box boy"gage a conman who travels the world asking for money to ‘investigate 911” his research has produced the “box boy” experiment!
      YOU MUST SEE THIS!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
      HE ALSO CLAIMS THAT WTC7 SUCKS!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4

      911truthers are way too stupid to see how stupid they really are!
      here is one of the few ACTUAL structural engineers from ae911truth telling his theory

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeE-ArPXnQ

      I love stupid people,twoofers are good entertaiment.

    • averill says:

      04:49pm | 16/09/11

      There is one common denominator in all of these 9/11 attacks. The twin towers were reduced to dust and ashes. The Pentagon plane had almost no debris. Flight 93 had no remains, just burnt ground and a few bits and pieces. 
      Has someone,  Either Us or Muslim, got a new weapon that simply explodes with such heat and force that it disintegrates everything?

    • The Griff says:

      05:40am | 17/09/11

      To those of you who attack ones search for the truth shame on you. To burry your head in the sand. To not ask questions when the answers we are given are clearly problematic. There is evidence on both ends to support what ever end you hold in Mind . To be Honest I have read reports on thermite being a player proven threw science. With this alone I cannot rest my mind and accept the status quo. To not ask questions is blatant ignorance.

    • 911TRUTHINATOR says:

      12:23pm | 17/09/11

      Jack Condon says:
      “The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is crushing.  Here’s a link to some of the evidence.”
      http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

      OMG! you think that low-res photo of the nose of a b757 taken through a fish eye lens is proof that flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon just shows how far you will leave reality to make your fantasy come true. what about the 100s of witnesses who were stopped in gridlock on the highway right next to the pentagon that saw flight 77 fly over the highway into the pentagon?  you just going to ignore them and have that stupid pic as proof? 
      not crushing jan!!!
      you can’t make this up!


      911 is the most investigated terrorist event in history,every nation, including all muslim nations (with the exception of iran) KNOW that al qaeda did 911.
      if you want to debate 911 with intelligent people,including a nasa scientist,other scientists,pilots,firefighters,doctors,engineers and many more experts go to the JREF forum and click on the 911conspiracys sub-forum:)

    • Craig says:

      01:06pm | 19/09/11

      And who is Al-Qaeda exactly?

      From Wikipedia: “Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as “the database”, and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians.”

      What part of “recruited and trained by the CIA” don’t you mentally defunct simpletons understand?

    • 911TRUTHINATOR says:

      06:02pm | 17/09/11

      Hereward Fenton says:
      “This video from the Corbett Report summarizes the absurdities of the official 9/11 narrative in 5 min:”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98`

      Here is thread devoted to that video you twoofers are excited about.
      http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=219207
      180 replys 2,500 views come on twoofers! come and present your evidence, nows your chance to tell the world mr fenton!!! twoof time!!

      —————————————————————————————————————-
      Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word “truth”. I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i’m being lied too.
      The Platypus.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      09:23pm | 17/09/11

      Hmm… some penetrating analysis in that thread truthinator, such as: “yuuu toob is the bible when it comes to twoof, I’m totally convinced now… Inside Jobby Job!!!!!”

      Yep, those JREF boys really nailed it. I’m handing in my badge.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      06:15pm | 17/09/11

      I agree with you in regard to your observations about the link that Jack Condon posted. Many people who describe themselves as 9/11 truthers are unable to understand the difference between evidence and speculation. However this observation is equally true of many who call themselves “9/11 conspiracy debunkers”.

      You see, the official story is like an unproven conspiracy theory relying on a myriad of assumptions.

      So, while you win points for pointing out the flaws in the Pentagon theory you lose points for your own failure to connect the dots.

    • 911TRUTHINATOR says:

      10:12pm | 17/09/11

      Well mr fenton it’s hard to keep a straight face when that ridiculous video starts with “19 cavemen led by bin laden on a kidney dialyss machine” crap which is a lie.that video is very antitruth,that twoofers can’t see that is proof they lack normal thinking skills.
      perhaps they should have learned more at school than “connect the dots”

    • ChrispyT says:

      09:20pm | 17/09/11

      Great article, Hereward.

      hands up who thinks LC should get a new day job. Trolling thepunch and spurting nonsense all day can’t be too fulfilling.

      btw - NIST only talks about the demise of wtc7 until the so called ‘collapse iniation point’ .They use this little word device to escape from actually explaining how all the structural steel - which has until then always been expected to remain strong - suddenly, inexplicably synchronously disintegrated.

      It can’t be explained so the didn’t even try.

    • The Griff says:

      05:41am | 18/09/11

      It can be explained! The us of THERMITE would produce catastrophic damage to any steal struckture it comes in contact with. The use of THERMITE has been proven with science. The THERMITE use was not just a backyard concoction either. It was a highly advanced organic nano thermite. There are some companies out there or reserch labs that have created nano Thermite, but it is not widley used to this point. This points to a sophisticated orginization with lots of money and many scientist!  Does anybody have an opinion on the use of thermite. Why does everyone ignore this evidence!

    • winston says:

      10:40pm | 18/09/11

      no question that wtc 1 2 & 7 were blown up with preplanted explosives:
      http://smu.gs/jvzZxu

    • LC says:

      12:43pm | 19/09/11

      Oh there certainly is questions and extensive debate about that. Scroll up the page and take a look.

    • Hereward Fenton says:

      08:45am | 19/09/11

      Here are the exact words Senator Max Cleland used when he quit the 9/11 Commission: “This is a scam,” Cleland said. “It’s disgusting. America is being cheated.”

      “As each day goes by,” Cleland said, “we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted…. Let’s chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that’s what they did; they went to war.”
      http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:29am | 19/09/11

      Wow you people are still spamming this thread with your 911 nonsense!
      I really do find it amazing, here we are 10 years on and you wood ducks still haven’t figured out 911, yet the heros on flight 93 figured out 911 within minutes and sacrificed themselves to save countless others. Your failure to comprehend reality is really a slap in the face to their bravery.
      Let it go truthlings, you are wrong, let the victims rest in peace, they deserve that much. And you are just pissing in the wind with this 911 Inside jobby job jibberish.

    • trout says:

      04:53pm | 23/09/11

      Honestly, I never bought the 9-11 scam for a second, and am still gob-smacked that anyone could have. Longest ten years of my life, so far.

      Psychologists: Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do -
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

    • ChrispyT says:

      11:47am | 04/10/11

      Trout:
      Well, you must have been better informed than most people. I had to see building 7 falling freefall before I had any inkling that we had not been told the whole story (I mean, how could I not know until 2006 that in fact THREE towers were destroyed, not TWO as I had previously understood it!?)

      911 Truthinator:

      You’ve presented the association fallacy;
      Sean was a 911 truth seeker,
      Sean was deranged and murdered his father,
      therefore 911 truth seekers are deranged and/or murderers.

      You also attack the person rather than the argument when you call Fran a ‘fruitcake’. This is the ‘ad hominem fallacy’.

      This is while you’re distracting and leading away from the core argument, which is called the ‘red herring fallacy’.

      Please present a substantive argument rather than a string of logical fallacies.

      PEACE

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter