The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewWhitney Webb Archive
More Americans Questioning Official 9/11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Workers use cutting torches as they clear the site of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center, Jan. 23, 2002. Richard Drew | AP

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve.

Today the event that defined the United States’ foreign policy in the 21st century, and heralded the destruction of whole countries, turns 18. The events of September 11, 2001 remains etched into the memories of Americans and many others, as a collective tragedy that brought Americans together and brought as well a general resolve among them that those responsible be brought to justice.

While the events of that day did unite Americans in these ways for a time, the different trajectories of the official relative to the independent investigations into the September 11 attacks have often led to division in the years since 2001, with vicious attacks or outright dismissal being levied against the latter.

Yet, with 18 years having come and gone — and with the tireless efforts from victims’ families, first responders, scientists and engineers — the tide appears to be turning, as new evidence continues to emerge and calls for new investigations are made. However, American corporate media has remained largely silent, preferring to ignore new developments that could derail the “official story” of one of the most iconic and devastating attacks to ever occur on American soil.

For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day, called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the attacks.

While the call for a new investigation from a NY Fire Department involved in the rescue effort would normally seem newsworthy to the media outlets who often rally Americans to “never forget,” the commissioners’ call for a new investigation was met with total silence from the mainstream media. The likely reason for the dearth of coverage on an otherwise newsworthy vote was likely due to the fact that the resolution that called for the new investigation contained the following clause:

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

In the post-9/11 world, those who have made such claims, no matter how well-grounded their claims may be, have often been derided and attacked as “conspiracy theorists” for questioning the official claims that the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on September 11 did so for any reason other than being struck by planes and from the resulting fires. Yet, it is much more difficult to launch these same attacks against members of a fire department that lost a fireman on September 11 and many of whose members were involved with the rescue efforts of that day, some of whom still suffer from chronic illnesses as a result.

Rescue workers climb on piles of rubble at the World Trade Center in New York, Sept. 13, 2001. Beth A. Keiser | AP
Rescue workers climb on piles of rubble at the World Trade Center in New York, Sept. 13, 2001. Beth A. Keiser | AP

Another likely reason that the media monolithically avoided coverage of the vote was out of concern that it would lead more fire departments to pass similar resolutions, which would make it more difficult for such news to avoid gaining national coverage. Yet, Commissioner Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the meeting’s conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan anyway.

“We’re a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force,” Gioia said. “We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last,” he added.

While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even those who led the commission have said that the investigation was “set up to fail” from the start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the events of that day.

For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in their book Without Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). They and other commissioners have outright said that the “official” report on the attacks is incomplete, flawed and unable to answer key questions about the terror attacks.

Despite the failure of American corporate media to report these facts, local legislative bodies in New York, beginning with the fire districts that lost loved ones and friends that day, are leading the way in the search for real answers that even those that wrote the “official story” say were deliberately kept from them.

Persuasive scientific evidence continues to roll in

Not long after the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District called for a new 9/11 investigation, a groundbreaking university study added even more weight to the commissioners’ call for a new look at the evidence regarding the collapse of three buildings at the World Trade Center complex. While most Americans know full well that the twin towers collapsed on September 11, fewer are aware that a third building — World Trade Center Building 7 — also collapsed. That collapse occurred seven hours after the twin towers came down, even though WTC 7, or “Building 7,” was never struck by a plane.

It was not until nearly two months after its collapse that reports revealed that the CIA had a “secret office” in WTC 7 and that, after the building’s destruction, “a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers.” WTC 7 also housed offices for the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, the New York Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and the bank Salomon Brothers.

Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites “uncontrolled building fires” as leading to the building’s destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new YouGov poll released on Monday.

That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected that the building’s fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent saying they didn’t know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had collapsed.

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public “goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story skyscraper fell into its footprint due to ‘office fires,’ everyone in the country would have heard about it.”

The fact that the media chose not to cover this, Walter asserted, shows that “the mainstream media and the political establishment live in an alternative universe and the rest of the American public is living in a different universe and responding to what they see in front of them,” as reflected by the results of the recent YouGov poll.

Another significant finding of the YouGov poll was that 48 percent of respondents supported, while only 15 percent opposed, a new investigation into the events of September 11. This shows that not only was the Franklin Square Fire District’s recent call for a new investigation in line with American public opinion, but that viewing the footage of WTC 7’s collapse raises more questions than answers for many Americans, questions that were not adequately addressed by the official investigation of the 9/11 Commission.

The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7’s collapse did not fit with the official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building came down not due to fire but from “the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely due to office fires.

The study, currently available as a draft, concluded that “uncontrolled building fires” did not lead the building to fall into its footprint — tumbling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity free-fall for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second collapse — as has officially been claimed. Instead, the study — authored by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Feng Xiao and Dr. Zhili Quan — found that “fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] and private engineering firms that studied the collapse,” while also concluding “that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global [i.e., comprehensive] failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

This “near-simultaneous failure of every column” in WTC 7 strongly suggests that explosives were involved in its collapse, which is further supported by the statements made by Barry Jennings, the then-Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. Jennings told a reporter the day of the attack that he and Michael Hess, then-Corporation Counsel for New York City, had heard and seen explosions in WTC 7 several hours prior to its collapse and later repeated those claims to filmmaker Dylan Avery. The first responders who helped rescue Jennings and Hess also claimed to have heard explosions in WTC 7. Jennings died in 2008, two days prior the release of the official NIST report blaming WTC 7’s collapse on fires. To date, no official cause of death for Jennings has been given.

Still “crazy” after all these years?

Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government narrative of the events of those days still remains taboo for many, as merely asking questions or calling for a new investigation into one of the most important events in recent American history frequently results in derision and dismissal.

Yet, this 9/11 anniversary — with a new study demolishing the official narrative on WTC 7, with a new poll showing that more than half of Americans doubt the government narrative on WTC 7, and with firefighters who responded to 9/11 calling for a new investigation — is it still “crazy” to be skeptical of the official story?

Firefighters hose down the smoldering remains of 7 World Trade Center Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001, in New York. Ryan Remiorz | AP
Firefighters hose down the smoldering remains of 7 World Trade Center Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001, in New York. Ryan Remiorz | AP

Even in years past, when asking difficult questions about September 11 was even more “off limits,” it was often first responders, survivors and victims’ families who had asked the most questions about what had really transpired that day and who have led the search for truth for nearly two decades — not wild-eyed “conspiracy theorists,” as many have claimed.

The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American.

However, as evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative, it becomes ever more clear that the reason for this media campaign is to prevent legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve, even smearing victims’ families and ailing first responders to do so. For too long, “Never Forget” has been nearly synonymous with “Never Question.”

Yet, failing to ask those questions — even when more Americans than ever now favor a new investigation and discount the official explanation for WTC 7’s collapse — is the ultimate injustice, not only to those who died in New York City on September 11, but those who have been killed in their names in the years that have followed.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

(Republished from Mint Press News by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 51 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:

    The official story of 9/11 will be revisited when a mainstream news organ does a feature on Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty.

    That’ll be when pigs fly.

    We live in The Matrix. Nothing is as represented to us.

  2. There is no new evidence. This is fake news. Just sayin’…

  3. tanabear says:

    Leroy Hulsey et al. of the University of Alaska Fairbanks released their draft report on WTC7 on September 3rd. These are the major findings and conclusions:

    The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
    9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
    core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior.”

    So World Trade Tower 7 was an engineered demolition. This is something that the 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” believed all along. Now a major engineering study confirms it.

    • Agree: utu, davidgmillsatty
  4. On any other day in history, if a 47-story skyscraper fell into its footprint due to ‘office fires,’ everyone in the country would have heard about it.

    1) Like many, I saw it on TV, and it registered because I knew it existed because I worked for several years I worked in and around the WTC complex. For most Americans, the WTC complex was the twin towers, so of course WTC 7 didn’t register.

    2) The Earth’s gravity pulls the center of mass of things straight toward Earth unless there is sufficient force to alter that path. It wasn’t necessary for all or nearly all of the supporting columns to fail, just enough for the building to no longer stand. Search building collapse on YouTube and you’ll see more than a few fall into their own footprint.

    3) “It was in free fall” is a BS finding; “Free Fall” is the motion of a body where gravity is the only force accelerating it. The only thing accelerating WTC 7 toward Earth was Earth’s gravity, so once WTC 7’s mass started falling toward Earth, it was in “free fall.” I would imagine the studies conflated the period of falling at 9.8m/s with “free fall” … Oh, look, it’s falling at 9.8m/s it’s in free fall!!! Yes, that’s how Earth’s gravity works. The resistance of the remaining collapsing columns was not sufficient to measurably change the acceleration of the mass above once gravity had the edge.

    4) Who benefitted from pulling WTC 7? What was the point of taking it out too?

    The official story of 9/11 might not be true, but it is plausible. Don’t get me wrong; I love a good conspiracy story, and sometimes they turn out to be true, like FDR & Pearl Harbour, but the mass of people who finally hear the truth are often too remote from the event to care.

  5. @The Alarmist

    If the official explanation is plausible, then why worry your head about it?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  6. @The Alarmist

    Total nonsense. But if it makes you feel good about yourself OK.

    The missing part of your explanation is how the “just enough columns to fail” occurred. Getting “just enough to fail” is the trick. Fires have never done that in a steel frame building before or since. The reason is simple. Heat can’t “stack” on steel. Steel is a great radiator.

    And of course random fires can not create a symmetrical collapse.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  7. @davidgmillsatty

    I’m just a lowly aerospace engineer 30+ years out of the trade, but I think I have sufficient grasp of the physics and material sciences at play. What you call a “symmetrical collapse” is a misread of what actually happened, and there is plenty of serious analysis to support the official story.

    Fires have never done that in a steel frame building before or since.

    Actually, they have. At least 22 times since 1970, of which WTC buildings account for 4.

    Heat can’t “stack” on steel. Steel is a great radiator.

    Steel loses 90% of its strength at roughly half of its melting temperature.

    It is plausible.

  8. @ploni almoni

    If the official explanation is plausible, then why worry your head about it?

    Because junk science actually impedes getting to the truth.

  9. Mossad’s execution of 9-11 should have been a wake up call.
    You guys subscribed to the phony WMD and coyote planes dissapearing into the babylonian twin towers whilst your intuition should have kicked in and told you something is not right.
    9-11 should have been the litmus test for truth but you conveniently ignored it. You looked the other way due to cognitive dissonance.
    You followed Bush’s order to go on a spending spree with more credit card debt jacked up with high interest to feed the satanic cabal instead.
    With all these bogus wars on terror and non-ending hoaxes you have unwittingly supported the Zionist Satanic push for one world disorder.
    At this point, all you can do is repent for your sins and start fighting back the criminal enterprize who are in charge of orchestrating all these bogus war on terror, creating these monstrous, diabolical, sinister ISISraHELL with the help of al-CIA-da and MOSSAD.
    Alternate would be to sit back and enjoy bigger fireworks than 9-11 coming near you whilst they prepare greater IzraHELL for the coming of their Yahweh, The Anti-Christ dajjal who will globalize his reign of terror from Jerusalem.
    Either way buckle up for a roller coaster ride with some of these demonic, totally psychopathic, diabolical, sinister, pathological liars and corrupters of mother earth. You reap what you sow.

    There is a lie. Then there is a BIG LIE. Then there is 911. Santa Claus is beyond a LIE. Tel LIE vised 911 EvangeLIED are being taken for a ride by way of Deception to think Jesus Christ died for their Evils. Everyone shall have to account for deeds, either good or evil to enter Paradise or eternal abode in Hell fire.

    The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both preceded and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three and a half dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely phoney “war on terror” it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full of countries in the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using U.S. military, and turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is made to obey patently unlawful statutes in the name of “emergency” while the ruling elite has quit obeying any laws at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now restless and resentful public. – See more at:Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11

  10. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:

    The first section of the Uniform Building Code is the “Life Safety Section.” It’s purpose is to
    protect occupants of structures from injury caused by fires or other unsafe conditions. The
    second section has to do with Structural Design, with the likewise purpose of preventing
    injury from structural failure caused by overloading, wind, earthquake, fire and (in the case of the twin towers) aircraft impact. If fire could cause a steel high rise to fail these buildings would never have been approved for occupancy.
    The twin towers were the strongest structures ever built up to that moment in architectural history. The obfuscating clowns who went on the airwaves with the absurd thesis that they were poorly designed and the floors pancaked onto one another were lying for their
    deep state masters. It’s hard to handle this truth so the impulse to look the other way is
    understandable. But the fact is that not one single aspect of the “official” explanation of
    what happened on 9/’11/2001 makes one damn bit of sense.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  11. @The Alarmist

    Sure you’re an aerospace engineer, and I’m Jesus. You’re either a complete fool or another Jew planting disinformation. Speaking of Jews, why is it that all those who use comment sections to parrot the government’s BS story regarding 911 are supporters of Israel? I’ll tell you why because Israel and Jews were the perpetrators of 911.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  12. As I’ve said many, many times, the “controlled demotition” theory is a diversion. At best it’s a limited hangout, at worst it’s total BS. The important questions include: who benefitted from 9/11 (certainly not the Arabs!) Who financed the highjackers? Why were FBI agents in Minneapolis and Phoenix ordered to back off? Why didn’t the USAF scramble to intercept the jets? Why did the CIA section tracking AQ in Malaysia take no action? Why didn’t the spies and agents of “our greatest ally” warn us of the dangerous terrorists they were tailing? Why did the Bush Administration ignore the warnings about terrorist plans to use airplanes to strike buildings? Why couldn’t the US catch Bin Laden? Why, when they allegedly killed him years later, did they dump his body in the ocean?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  13. jiri says:
    @The Alarmist

    It is easy enough to do the experiment and find out for yourself.

    Take a gallon (or 2 or 5) of kerosene, a piece of steel- (a 4inch by 4 inch 1/4 inch piece or similar)- and see how hot you can get it. Of course you are permitted matches or lighters or other such devices to get the fire going.

    If you can get it to 400 deg Fahrenheit what you say is plausible.

    While you are at it you can also do another experiment that will not only make it plausible but highly probable. Find how hot you can that piece of steel to go using the kerosene in any way you see fit. Get it to half of the melting point of steel and I would say it would get to the highly probable level.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  14. @2stateshmustate

    … and I’m Jesus.

    I’m confused here: Who’s the Jew?

  15. @jiri

    Mix kerosene with a sufficient amount of an oxidising agent and you essentially get rocket fuel that has a combustion temperature in excess of 3k.

  16. Ronnie says:

    The MSM do not properly inform us about what happens. The main reason for this is that the MSM support our government and in return our government supports Israel.

  17. tanabear says:
    @The Alarmist

    What you call a “symmetrical collapse” is a misread of what actually happened, and there is plenty of serious analysis to support the official story.

    So which analysis do you support, NIST, ARUP or Weidlinger? Or do you have you own theory and method?

    Actually, they have. At least 22 times since 1970, of which WTC buildings account for 4.

    Can you list for me these examples?

    Steel loses 90% of its strength at roughly half of its melting temperature. It is plausible.

    What evidence do you have that any of the steel got that hot? Plus, you have to explain the complete collapse of the tower, not weakened steel in one part of the building.

  18. @The Alarmist

    An aerospace engineer. Good for you. Maybe you need a refresher course with some architects and building engineers. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a good place to start.

    As for steel losing 90% of its strength at half its melting temperature — that does not imply that heat not will stack on steel. The whole building was a steel radiator. And the fires in building 7 were very small so just how do small fires get to half the melting temperature of steel when the radiator effect is bleeding what little heat these fires have from a certain spot.

    Lets see the steel buildings you claim were demolished by fires, because I have heard many architects and engineers say the number is zero. We are talking a total collapse of the buildings not just a partial collapse. Let’s see them.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  19. Steve says:

    The only film I’ve seen of the WTC going down has the charges going off floor by floor just like a controlled implosion. Having seen more than one of those in Las Vegas during the last building boom, I always questioned either the film shown or the veracity of the story. And that’s not even considering Bldg 7, the Jew Calls, the owner getting quickly richer or the bullshit chance of two non-pilots with a minimum of stick time (and none in an actual jumbo jet) performing aerial ballet into the towers. Simulators are not the real thing; to front the concept that such training would make a skilled pilot is BS in the extreme.It always made more sense that the Ayrabs were just patsies to hide the reality that the planes were being remotely piloted. Not to mention the last time a plane hit a sky scraper in NYC there was mostly cosmetic damage and that was from a fully loaded (with high-test gasoline) B-17 hitting the Empire State in the fog. After this crash building codes were updated, though the fire from actual high test was surely hotter than the kerosene that modern jets use. Etc. So let us say the narrative never added up. Never bothered with the wacky theories; those a likely disinformation leaks anyway, but by merely examining facts the official cover is tenuous at best.

    Cui bono, particularly in hindsight is enlightening to put things mildly

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  20. @davidgmillsatty

    @ The Alarmist

    By the way the WTC buildings can not be part of the control group.

  21. @The Alarmist

    Yeah.

    I think I’ll go with the findings of those at UAF who devoted a great deal of time and effort to studying the cause of collapse. If one claims that NIST did the same (for which I find no evidence), then, at best, we’re at an impasse — an impasse that is resolved when we examine the mountain of other available evidence, which does not bode well for the official narrative.

    At all.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
  22. “Not to mention the last time a plane hit a sky scraper in NYC there was mostly cosmetic damage and that was from a fully loaded (with high-test gasoline) B-17 hitting the Empire State in the fog. ”
    A quibble: it was a B 25 Mitchell bomber. A medium, as opposed to a heavy (B17) bomber.
    Not sure to what degree the distinction is relevant.

  23. The funny thing about the WTC in general is the claim that they were all taken down by two planes that came from Logan Airport Boston that was ‘guarded’ by ICTS Inernational that was under ‘management’ of Israeli government agents.And according to the U.S.and Israeli governments’ ‘official story’ even WTC 7 collapsed indirectly due to fires caused by those two planes crashing and landing INSIDE that tops of the two WTC towers themselves. So the real engineering question to ask even before debating whether fuel from the planes could have melted or weakened the steel and cause collapse or not is this – Could those planes have even penetrated the WTC twin towers in the first place or would they have simply crashed into the steel beams composing the WTC buildings and broken into pieces on the ground ? ! So maybe until it is proven the planes could penetrate the buildings in the first place the quesytion of the fuel melting the styyeel is a mute point.Surprised the engineers didn’t deal with that first or at all.

    No debris whatsoever even fron the flimsy body and wings are reported to have fallen in npieces to the ground from either of the twoo planes ! Duh !!

    • Replies: @foolisholdman
  24. Sparkon says:

    Thanks for your fine work Ms. Webb, and especially for the very revealing photograph by Richard Drew featured atop your article here, which shows workers cutting through steel beams of the basement structure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, like those underneath WTC 2 opposite the so-called “bathtub,” which can be identified by the unique angled steel beams providing additional support and stability at the very base of the structures.

    The intact basement structure drives another stake through the heart of the bogus “nukes in the basement” conjecture.

    If there had been a nuclear detonation in the basement of the Twin Towers, this entire basement structure where the workers are cutting would have been obliterated.

    • Replies: @z
  25. Erebus says:

    … the study (was) authored by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Feng Xiao and Dr. Zhili Quan

    Come on people. How many clues do you need?

    This is just the latest example of the Communist Chinese scheming their way into America’s naive academe, either to steal technology, or to undermine the American-led world order and the American way of life by sowing confusion in their underpinning narratives.

    It’s time Trump told the Chinese to stop meddling. Unfettered by logic or tedious mathematical calculations, Americans are free to believe whatever they’re told, and the rest of the world is free to believe whatever America tells them to.

  26. z says:
    @Sparkon

    NYT:10/9/2001:Under the Towers, Ruin and Resilience

    The new underground geography includes a hole roughly 100 feet wide, known, Mr. Juncosa said, as the “punch” down through the middle of the Customs House all the way to the bottom of the basement. The floors around the hole, however, are sound and seem to be doing their job of supporting the wall. “We probably will not have to put tiebacks up there,” Mr. Hahn said.

    Besides the trough along Liberty Street, there is also a crater three stories deep just east of the bathtub wall where 4 World Trade Center used to be.

    May also want to google: crater in granite bedrock under wtc complex. You will easily be able to find images of these craters.

    Nuclear weapons come in all kinds of different yields not to mention different mechanisms. Their location of detonation changes their effects greatly.

    Here is a video of an underground nuclear test called Operation Tea pot, test name ESS. This has a focusing effect which could be channeled straight up through the buildings. By the way Wikipedia reports this test as an atomic demolition munition.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  27. Sparkon says:
    @z

    According to what I’ve read

    “The hole under the WTC is called a glacial pothole. The melt waters of a retreating glacier polished a hole in some folded bedrock.”

    https://www.metabunk.org/claim-picture-shows-rock-formation-under-wtc-caused-by-nuclear-device.t4595/

    The geology of Manhattan is quite interesting.

    The World Trade Center site was located on man-made water-clogged landfill that had accumulated over centuries, … out onto the Hudson River from the original Manhattan shoreline, with bedrock located 65 feet (20 m) below.

    If you look at the hole in Bldg. 6, structural elements from WTC 1 (or 2?) can be seen at the bottom of the hole in the form of the external box-column “chex” sections. The simplest explanation is that debris falling or ejected from WTC 1 punched a big hole in Bldg. 6.

    Notice the hanging debris within WTC 6 that would tend to refute a bottom up force, and support a top down force, i.e. debris falling from WTC 1. Note too there is no sign of a blast of any kind within Bldg. 6’s ruins.

    I don’t dispute nuclear bombs of some type may have been used in the WTC demolitions, but if the demolition videos are reliable, the top-down destruction we saw with WTC 1 and 2, if continued all the way down to near ground level, would have resulted in the total destruction of the Twin Towers with no need for any extra devastation.

    No need at all.

    But there was an overriding need to protect the so-called ” bathtub,” or slurry wall holding back the Hudson river.

    On September 11 the bathtub mysteriously remained without significant damage despite two quarter-mile tall towers allegedly collapsing on it. How did the bathtub avoid significant damage despite a million tons of WTC material supposedly slamming into it? Even if no material directly hit the bathtub, serious seismic impacts on bedrock would have damaged walls, wall corners and tunnels under WTC leading under the Hudson River because of motion similar to that caused by an earthquake. The bathtub was not built to withstand such colossal impact, we may be assured, because New York is not an active seismic zone. Although a disputed number, each tower weighed an estimated 500,000 tons and the official story insists airplane damage and fires caused each tower to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint. No bathtub structure could remain unscathed after a mountain of quarter-mile high material was dropped on it twice. The intact bathtub appears to contradict the official theory of a gravity-driven collapse in which virtually the entire weight of the Twin Towers would crash into the bathtub.

    — Dr. Judy Woods

    Whatever they did to the Twin Towers on Black Tuesday, their controlled demolition worked perfectly to blow the Twins to bits from the top down, and additionally, to protect the bathtub from being subjected to the massive hammer blows of the entire mass of the Twin Towers impacting upon it.

    • Replies: @z
  28. @The Alarmist

    Actually, they have. At least 22 times since 1970, of which WTC buildings account for 4.

    Any references?

    Didn’t all seven WTC building fall down that day?

  29. @Tony Ryals

    No debris whatsoever even fron the flimsy body and wings are reported to have fallen in npieces to the ground from either of the twoo planes ! Duh !!

    Exactly the same with the “airplanes” that hit the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
  30. @The Alarmist

    Incredible. You claim to be an aerospace engineer? How many aircraft have you worked on that drilled a hole?

    Buildings do not commit suicide and sit down into their own footprint. And the only way that building goes into freefall is if there is nothing underneath.

    As far as steel losing 90% of its strength from kerosene fires, if that were true than every Coleman stove on the planet would melt the pot your stew was in the last time you were camping.

    Care to name these 22 buildings since 1970? I can just imagine the list of sheer nonsense….

  31. @The Alarmist

    Now I know for certain you are not an “aerospace engineer”. Because if you were, you would know that jet fuel flashes and explodes when airplanes crash.

    Below is a video of a jet crashing. The jet fuel exploded so quickly that it didn’t even light the wooden telephone pole on fire that was right beside the point of impact.

    And you believe there was imaginary “rocket fuel” that caused the towers to disintegrate? Good god.

  32. @Steve

    There was an engineer a while ago who pointed out that the entirety of both planes were contained within each tower at impact. And each tower was only a small amount larger (206 feet) than the wingspan of each 767 airplane. (156 feet).

    So the likelihood of untrained pilots flying an aircraft that was flying so fast it was exceeding its design limitations with such precision that they were able to hit right dead center of the buildings is about equal to you driving your car at 200 MPH into your single car garage without hitting either side. Twice. After making a sweeping turn.

    The entire story is BS no matter where you look.

  33. z says:
    @Sparkon

    First responders reported explosions coming from under the WTC complex prior to the collapse. If a nuclear/unconventional weapon was detonated under the WTC buildings it’s blast wave would travel fastest in the densest material. When this blast wave reaches a medium that is less dense, such as the building/air boundary, it reflects off this boundary and inverts. So a compression wave would go up the building followed by a rarefaction wave traveling from the top of the building to the bottom. Sure would help drop a building into it’s own footprint.

    Think it’s probable that multiple methods, thermate/conventional/unconventional, were all used to bring down these buildings though.

    Some interesting info in the following pdf.
    Shock Effects of Surface and Subsurface Bursts

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  34. @foolisholdman

    [MORE]

    Do you think just any lawn would hold up like this after a plane crashed on it?

    No Way!

    This is how an ordinary lawn looks after a commercial airliner crashes on it…

    What a mess!

    But look how marvelous the Penta-Lawn 2000! held up moments after a Boeing 757 crashed on it…

    Simply Amazing!

    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn.htm

  35. Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government narrative of the events of those days still remains taboo for many

    This topic illustrates a few things about humans and their societies that many of us do not realize, or are too afraid to realize. It’s bigger than just the cognitive dissonance, though this is part of it. Admittedly it is uncomfortable for most people to think about such things… Ignorance is bliss, and it is much easier to follow the herd.

    But…

    Humans have been selectively bred and conditioned for obedience to authority for at least the last 10,000 years. Stanley Milgram made the ramifications of this clear when he showed us some of the dangers this fact presents for our world. Couple Milgram’s findings with those of Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments and it starts becoming clear why a large part, about 30%, of the population will never be able to question the official orthodoxy regarding this “New Pearl Harbor”.

    Many people simply do not have the mental ability to question those in a perceived position of authority. These people are used to following orders. They are trained very well. These are the people who will electrocute a stranger just because a man in a white coat says to. These are the people who will throw a grenade into your babies crib while storming your home in the middle of the night because some junkie informant told them they bought drugs there in exchange for cash or a lighter sentence. These are the people who will not believe their lying eyes when it contradicts the words of their masters or if it risks going against the apparent consensus of a group of strangers.

    I call them authoritarian followers. They love punishing members of the outgroup. They love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They expect others to follow too.

    We all know September 11, 2001, was an inside/outside job. Cui bono? The axis of kindness. The U.S./Nato, Saudi Arabia and Israel committed the events of September 11, 2001 so they could escalate their wars in the middle east to redraw the map for Greater Israel while securing the oil in the middle east and the trillions in minerals in Afghanistan. The military industrial complex needs endless wars to justify their one trillion plus dollar annual budget and all the power that comes with it. Some people, like lucky Larry Silverstein, made billions off the transaction. There is plenty of profiteering and graft that comes with waging forever war.

    The same people who profited from the event are the same people who planned and executed the event. They are also the people who had the tools to make it happen. Fortunately for the criminals who committed the crimes of that day a large part of the population will line up to ridicule anyone who has the audacity to question the official narrative.

    So buy police brutality bonds and pay your victory tax. Your work will set you free.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  36. @The Alarmist

    You were probably fired for incompetence.

  37. Anonymous[973] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adam Smith

    It’s so unbelievably rare to run into a sincere description of the average fellow. Because one cam’t lie to himself about the others less than he does about himself (he can’t know the others more than he can know himself), so usually evident features of people (thus of mainstream culture, history, journalistic narratives,…) must he denied because evident features of the self must be denied.

    It’s co-operation.

    And then, aren’t they a social species? You have surely observed that a group of them functions in ways very close to the ant colony, the bee hive, and so on. So many more billion neurons… but what rules the mind is still so close to what rules it in the other social species.

    The thing to consider is that for God knows how many thousands of years in mankind’s history, whenever two differently sized came to a confrontation, belonging in the largest equated survival, in the smallest death.
    Then there is the intragroup confrontations and dangers: here flattering the pack leaders best equated to better chances of survival + a more comfortable life. On the other hand, injuring their sense of power had the same outcome that it has for the ordinary bee or ant to do the same to the colony’s or hive’s leader.

    This has embedded a couple of instincts, which truth and fairness can’t be where they are, at the deepest level of the regular human mind.
    Some minds are different, but they don’t matter, first of all they don’t matter numerically.

    So official accounts of historic events are no more and no less truth-free of the accounts people make-up of their own lives’ essential events.
    If you assess the average divorce-asking woman’s narrative on her marriage and why she wants to break it up and the average account of, say, World War 2 in the average school book, the % of untruth will be circa the same.

    What happens at the higher levels follows from the nature of the majority.

  38. Anonymous[973] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adam Smith

    They love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They expect others to follow too.

    Following rules as long as nobody above them tells them to make an exception.
    They expect not all others, but only those below them in the power pole, to follow rules.
    If they see/realize/know someone above them has broken a rule, they are awesomely good at, wbile they have seen/realized/learned the fact, not having seen/realized/learned it.

    This kind of mind can’t afford unity and individuality, of course. There are always inconsistencies, and even contradictory things believed at the same time.
    And boy, how do the other authorities/authoritarian followers (depending whom they are dealingwith) who make up the psych professions praise that kind of person! How do they master selective blindness/forgetfulness/ignorance.

  39. Sparkon says:
    @z

    If a nuclear/unconventional weapon was detonated under the WTC buildings it’s blast…

    Its blast would have demolished the bathtub. That didn’t happen so RIP your cherished nukes in the basement nonsense.

  40. It’s obvious from most reader comments that the educational systems in America (and elsewhere) have completely decayed. “Cognitive dissonance” is just another cowardly way of accepting lies as truths… Most of you are lying to yourselves and expecting others to buy into hype and bullshit.

    Anyone who’s worked with cutting steel plate knows that 5 inch thick steel plating (as used in most lower columns of the towers) requires a perfect mixture of acetylene and oxygen just to get the cutting area hot enough to apply the oxygen burst that cuts along the line. Any cooling of the plate and it’s no cigar. There is no way air craft fuel (kerosene) and normal building materials can get anywhere near the melting point of steel, much less cause complete structural failure of a perfectly engineered steel beamed structure.

    Christopher Bollyn and many other dedicated journalists have connected all the relevant dots, yet the unwashed continue to hide behind their collage degrees and talk complete nonsense.

    The first and second laws of thermodynamics should be mastered before graduating from eighth grade… People need to quit lying about the efficacy of truth…

  41. Hibernian says:
    @Anon

    They were built around 1970 or so and jumbo jets were not anticipated. Previous experience with a plane striking a skyscraper was a WW2 vintage plane striking the empire state building.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  42. Hibernian says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    A conspiracy of not trying hard enough to defend ourselves against the threat, like Pearl Harbor, is more plausible than an Israeli controlled demolition conspiracy.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @davidgmillsatty
  43. D-FENS says:

    I am an agnostic on whether the twin towers were brought down by supplemental explosives. My question is, what is gained by actually bringing the buildings down? If the attacks were to serve as a pretext for war in the middle east, wouldn’t the acts of hijacking the planes and crashing them have been sufficient without the risks involved in planting explosives and being being detected?

    The only reasons I can offer are financial, such as the insurance payments, voided contracts, shorting stocks etc. and perhaps destruction of evidence in criminal or civil cases.

    What is interesting is the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion regarding the financing of 9/11: “… the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.“

    Then why do we have all the financial transaction laws?

  44. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    One day the truth about the USS Liberty will come out.
    One day the truth about 9/11 will come out.
    One day the communist Deep State will be held accountable for attempting and failing at a soft coup against a sitting US president.

    …..

    LOL!. That made me laugh just to write it.

    If the assholes who run our Deep State can, without apology, get millions of Germans to go fight and kill millions of barely removed German soldiers and civilians in Germany, for the benefit of Jews, Arabs,and Blacks, then there is no end to their chutzpa and lack of accountability. What I wrote about above pales in comparison and they know it.

  45. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hibernian

    A conspiracy of not trying hard enough to defend ourselves against the threat, like Pearl Harbor, is more plausible than an Israeli controlled demolition conspiracy.

    Based on what valid reasoning or metrics? You make a completely baseless assertion.

    Your opinion as to what is and isn’t plausible is just that, and it is counter to the hard evidence of the dancing Israeli operatives for one. Israelis are the best answer to the question “Qui bono”? You have no compelling answer to either of these facts, to start.

  46. @Hibernian

    Actually that is not true at all. The twin towers were designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707 that is a four engine plane and about the size of the 757.

  47. @Hibernian

    The demolition theory is not hard to believe at all. Who done it is a bit more difficult. Lots of plausible denial everywhere and lots of compartmentalized knowledge. Probably useful idiots as well.

    Which is the harder theory to believe? The magic bullet or multiple shooters?

  48. @The Alarmist

    So tell us, what oxidizer is carried by aircraft which, by definition fly in the air, which is 20% oxidizer.

    The only craft which carry oxidizer are space craft. And if there HAD been oxidizer on those planes, it would have looked like any failed rocket launch that ends in a crash. Immediate burning of the vast majority of the fuel in less than a second.

    I used to believe the narrative. Then I saw the photos of a high rise hotel, with 50 floors completely engulfed in flame and hot enough that the steel structure was visibly glowing…. and not the slightest *hint* of collapse.

    Data trumps theory. WTC didn’t come down due to jetliners — those were only a pretext to hide the actual mechanism of destruction.

    And Dylan Avery is as much a part of it as anything else. His complaints with the official narrative are as error-laden as the narrative itself…. so that as these errors are uncovered, other criticism of the official narrative are slimed by association.

  49. Dutch Boy says:

    I was never able to wrap my mind around the collapse of WTC7, from what looked like to me to be a dinky fire. Perhaps there is a plausible reason so minor a fire could cause such a collapse.

  50. jsigur says:

    The likelihood of another fake investigation, if a new one is ever enabled, is almost assured with the results conveniently finding that current targets of interest such as Russia, Iran, and Syria to be new culprits identified
    It is irrational to believe Real evidence exposing Israeli and US political insiders would ever be allowed to happen. For one thing it would require a unifying political stance to stand and speak boldly against the anti-Semitism charge with a belief that those who do will not be left alone to walk the plank after doing so.
    To date, no one who is in good standing with the MSM HAS BEEN WILLING TO DO THAT AND UNTIL SOME ARE, ANY INVESTIGATION IS DOOMED TO FAIL.
    There has also been no hint that real information will be allowed to speak when it comes to The Protocols of Zion, the Holohoax, or 911, WWII, Hitler, Sandy Hook or any of the other staged events so common nowadays in our culture.
    Ppl who know the truth are lying when required and what would make them tell the truth with a new investigation? There is no reason to believe their lying habits will be conquered and no reason to believe a 911 investigation will seek truthful answers though of course it will be claimed so and the Liars may mostly agree so they can keep lying while getting paid

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Whitney Webb Comments via RSS