The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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


Since the recent 9/11 physics debate focusing on the nuclear demolition hypothesis garnered a lot of interest in the Unz comment section, and since nanothermite-investigating chemistry professor Niels Harrit recently published an interesting article on the shortcomings of PCR tests, I thought this would be a good time for a flashback to the Great Demolition Debate of 2010.

As I wrote then:

On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

But wait – what about the unexploded nanothermite chips (making up as much as .1 percent of the WTC dust) found by chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight other scientists? While I don’t know much about chemistry, I’m good at judging arguments. Those who have attacked Dr. Harrit’s paper have used such blatantly bad arguments as to have made a prima facie case that the paper is unassailable. Let’s see whether Denis Rancourt, who knows something about nanotechnology, can do any better! (I wonder whether he thinks it’s a coincidence that much of the NIST cover-up crew, who pretended they had never heard of nanothermite, were in fact nanothermite experts!)

Niels Harrit is an Associate Professor at University of Copenhagen. He is an expert in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology, and the lead author of a potentially historic scientific paper on nanothermite residues in World Trade Center dust.

Denis Rancourt was a tenured professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. His activism on many issues, including the conflict in Occupied Palestine, led to his being fired and dragged off campus in handcuffs by police – an amazing moment in Denis’s ongoing academic freedom struggle.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 146 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I can’t believe my ears. A physics professor actually believes that buildings, and everything inside the buildings disintegrates into dust because of a few office fires?????

    Denis seems like a nice guy, but this is absolutely surreal. He cannot possibly know the evidence.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @GomezAdddams
  2. Denis is unbelievable. I’m sorry Keven this is beyond the pale. The top of WTC tilted 22 degrees and rotated, as both you and Prof Harrett pointed out. This means on one side of the building there was ZERO downward pressure, because that part of the building had tilted upward.

    I would never in my lifetime have expected such completely discombobulated nonsense to come from a physics professor. Bouncing 300 ton steel, too

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  3. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    I can’t believe my ears. A physics professor actually believes that buildings, and everything inside the buildings disintegrates into dust because of a few office fires?????

    Yes, I know, this is beyond grotesque.
    It is first year University scientific core curricula. Not even Physics degrees courses, just basic science core curricula; all teach the 1st and 2nd principles of Thermodynamics.

    Which impose that in order to melt structural steel, there has to be a fuel burning at least at steel-melting temperature. Nothing of the sort existed inside the Twin Towers, not even the alleged kerosene from the alleged planes could have reached the required temperature.

    This photo of the fire at Notre-Dame-De-Paris is a good illustration for the imbeciles who still believe such nonsense : in the middle of the disaster stands, unscathed, the construction galvanised-steel scaffolding that underwent 8 hours of non-stop burning.

    One wonders why people bother building sky-scrappers at all, if scaffoldings really are that safer than structural steel.

  4. “Was the steel tested for explosives…

    Remember the old elephant joke? How do you tell if an elephant has been in your refrigerator? By the footprints in the butter.

    If explosives had been used at the WTC it would have been obvious in a multitude of ways. It wasn’t and after that was pointed out then the nano-thermite theories started up.

    If someone can come up with an effective way to use thermite (nano or otherwise) on heavy (thick) vertical surfaces (like the surfaces of an upright steel column) he will make some very good money.

    • Replies: @Iris
  5. tanabear says:

    If explosives had been used at the WTC it would have been obvious in a multitude of ways.

    It was obvious in a multitude ways. It was assumed by the news commentators and firefighters that day that explosives had been used. If you watch the collapse of the North Tower, WTC1, you can see the explosive charges running down all four corners of the building.

    North Tower Exploding by David Chandler:

  6. What is it about a production run of Davy Crockett tactical Nukes stored in the safety of the gold vaults of the twin towers till they could be decommissioned on 9/11 rather than the original onward bound destination of Israel as originally agreed with the American military

    that experts do not understand?

    If also nano thermite were used on the plates that separated the narrowing vertical box columns on the vertical rises of the structural columns ,it would then explain how the twins had their upper vertical structures telescoped into the lower as the original collapsing event
    at a point adjacent to the original controlled explosions [posing as a plane hit ] under Cantor Fitzgerrald and Euro bond traders to get rid of the 10 year 240 billion dollar Brady Bond paperwork due redemption the following day

    Elementary my dear Watson

    Rule out the impossible first

    then whatever is left no matter how improbable is what actually happened

    which brings us to ground zero

  7. Iris says:
    @another fred

    If someone can come up with an effective way to use thermite (nano or otherwise) on heavy (thick) vertical surfaces (like the surfaces of an upright steel column) he will make some very good money.

    You are very correct, but please do not make the same mistake the participants in this debate are making.

    The 9/11 charade is wrongly presented as “controlled demolition” versus “nano-thermite”. It is a false problem statement: both controlled demolition and nanothermite were at play for the controlled destruction of the WTC.

    The third overseen parameter of the equation is the alleged “planes”.

    In reality, no plane crashed on the Twin Towers. Anybody with an honest mind, humble enough to accept to having been fooled by the media reports, can understand it simply by looking at the surreal photographs of ghost “planes” sailing unhindered into steel towers as if they were made of smoke.

    Not the smallest debris falling, no explosion from the wing reservoirs, no flame. Where has the wing, the engine gone? These were not real planes. The “plane” videos are cartoon physics, and 20 years on, it is about time people wake up to it.

    The gaping hole on the North Tower: not a single debris could be seen hanging out, where there should have been aluminium debris torn and hooked onto the structural steel beams.

    No planes crashed on the Twin Towers: the films, their trajectories, their speed, altitude and manoeuvring, everything defies the laws of Physics and Engineering. There never was any plane. What we saw were computer-generated silhouettes of planes, later added to the real explosion videos. The alleged planes were never shown live on TV.

    The nanothermite was indispensable and played a fundamental role in the false flag: by exploding in a spectacular way atop the Twin Towers, it allowed simulating a plane attack by Saudi terrorists, which in turn would become the indispensable casus belli to kick-start the “War on Terror” against target Muslim countries.

    After the nanothermite exploded, the Twin Towers were demolished using an embedded nuclear controlled demolition scheme, to create the level of fear and horror required to control American public opinion.

    So there is no exclusion or contradiction: both nanothermite and controlled demolition were needed and were utilised in the 9/11 false flag.

  8. @Iris

    I’m sympathetic to the idea that this was a controlled demolition, but I don’t understand the angle that there were no planes. Are you suggesting that all footage of the alleged plane strikes are doctored?

    I have no trust in the MSM but is all this footage faked? Genuine question.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @the grand wazoo
  9. Iris says:
    @The King is a Fink

    I have no trust in the MSM but is all this footage faked? Genuine question

    Absolutely not. Everything in the 9/11 videos is real and genuine, the explosions, the smoke, the flames, the dust, the people reacting to the unfolding disaster, everything is real…except the vague silhouettes of the “planes”, that were added retrospectively.

    There exist striking evidence that computer-generated shapes of planes were later added to the real explosion videos:

    1) A Chopper 4 helicopter footage of the South Tower broadcast live in the morning showed the explosion without any plane (at 1:30), but had a plane added to it for the afternoon broadcast.
    Furthermore, listening to the journalists watching the live event, it is clear there was no “plane” in sight. All they talk about is an explosion.

    2) A ridiculously faked video ended up with showing a “nose-in, nose-out” plane penetrating the South Tower all the way through, and then coming out the opposite side with its nose intact.
    This is of course a video-editing mistake, not a real life occurrence.

    The 9/11 “planes” narrative is an insult to common sense, let alone universal principles of Physics.
    The fraud has been very well described by a 9/11 truther called Ace Baker:

  10. jFranklin says:

    This absurd comparison to Hiroshima is a mere distraction to what happened. Hey, Denis how come the Meridian Bank Building in Penna didn’t collapse with all of its “gravitational” and “chemical” energy after burning for 18 hours!! More obfuscation from an “expert” – Kevin, why was this plant put on the show!! He has an agenda to distract from the perpetrators!!! Freedom fighter?? What from freedom from Truth?

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  11. Mulegino1 says:
    @Iris

    Exactly right.

    Virtually every single news camera in the region was trained on the Twin Towers after the first explosion in WTC 1, yet there was no clear live footage of the “second plane” going into WTC 2- only these silhouette like fakes taken with entirely divergent paths of approach or the ridiculous Hezarkhani footage which shows what appears to be a commercial airliner colliding with the steel and concrete perimeter of WTC 2 while maintaining constant velocity- a violation of the third law of motion.

    Commercial airliners are not armor piercing projectiles. They can be severely damaged by colliding with birds at cruising speed, have their wings sheared off by colliding with wooden posts and are even destructible on the ground by high winds. The airliner in question would have been destroyed on impact, with most of its components falling to the street below the point of impact, and most of the jet fuel would have ignited on the exterior of the building.

    According to the NTSB , the plan was traveling in excess of 500 mph near sea level-virtually impossible for a Boeing 737 commercial jetliner. The engines could never have generated sufficient thrust at that low altitude.

    The “19 Arab hijacker amateur pilots led by a man in a cave” was the primordial lie of 9/11- the lies simply get bigger and bigger once that risible foot in the door tall tale was promulgated and cognitively anchored in the minds of a critical mass of proles.

    The most experienced airline pilot- even one with time in type- could not have pulled off that miraculous maneuver in a 767 at that air speed and altitude.

    • Thanks: Iris, JWalters
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @JWalters
    , @The Alarmist
  12. @Iris

    Thanks for the links. Some material that I had not seen before.

    1) I simply assumed the broadcasters just hadn’t noticed the plane coming in from the distance to the rear of the towers. To be fair, its not immediately noticeable if you’re focusing on the two buildings. The impact of the plane would be hidden from view on that basis and they would therefore not have commented on it.

    2) That is interesting. I played the footage taken from the CBS helicopter slowly and you can see a dark object just as the explosion blossoms from the opposite side of the building. I agree it would be improbable for the plane to come out the other side but then again we have no evidence it was in fact part of the plane that we are seeing.

    My own skepticism began when Mohamed Atta’s passport was found on the sidewalk a few hours later. It’s possible I guess but what are the chances of that? The complete absence of any aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon site sealed the deal for me.

    I’ll check out Mr. Baker. Thanks again.

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @RoatanBill
  13. Iris says:
    @The King is a Fink

    The complete absence of any aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon site sealed the deal for me.

    And furthermore, the complete absence of wreckage at the feet of the Twin Towers !!!

    Remember, eye-witnesses did not know the buildings were going to collapse. People stayed all around the Towers while they were burning. Yet nobody saw or filmed a debris, a piece of aluminium, a seat, a luggage, even a passenger falling down the Tower? Not a single tiny piece of anything, from both the alleged planes, fell to the ground and was picked up or even seen by eye-witnesses?

    This is why the perpetrators had to invent the grotesque tale of a plane piercing and engulfing itself totally inside a steel structure, twice furthermore, so as to justify the extraordinary total absence of any physical evidence that the aircraft ever existed.

    • Replies: @dimples
  14. Iris says:
    @Mulegino1

    The most experienced airline pilot- even one with time in type- could not have pulled off that miraculous manoeuvre in a 767 at that air speed and altitude

    Many thanks for the great summary.

    Each building had a width about the size of the aircrafts’ wing span, making it a very narrow target impossible to hit at the speed the “planes” were allegedly flying at.

    The experiment to crash onto the WTC was made by a team of professional pilots on flight simulator, using a smaller, more manoeuvrable 737. The only way they could hit a Tower was to slow down the plane at landing speed. At 2:50 in the video:

    According to the NTSB , the plan was traveling in excess of 500 mph near sea level-virtually impossible for a Boeing 737 commercial jetliner.

    The “PilotsFor911TruthOrganisation” collective have explained why this point in particular violates engineering principle. (Unfortunately, their site has now been taken down).

    A plane is kept is the air by a vertical force called the “Lift” and pushed forward in its direction of motion by a (somewhat) horizontal force called the “Thrust”.

    The Lift is a force created by the hydrodynamic movement of the air around the plane. Its magnitude increases with the density of air and with the speed of the plane. If the Lift becomes too large, the plane’s wings, then the plane, will break in-flight.

    The lift calculated at sea level and at 500mph, the flight parameters of the alleged UA175 “plane” would have produced a dynamic pressure far beyond what a commercial aircraft could bear. The Boeing 767 would have broken in-flight long before reaching the South Tower.

    There was no plane involved in the demolition of the WTC.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  15. Thanks for very interesting article.

    I believe 9/11 was by Mossad.

  16. It’s sad to see the dying embers of 911 trutherism. Almost everyone abandoned it. Does Alex Jones even mention it anymore?

  17. dimples says:
    @Iris

    Since the planes were travelling at high speed, parts were unlikely to drop straight down the side of the buildings. But of course if such parts were photographed or found, then these photographs and parts were faked. Parts landed on the tops of buildings adjacent to the Twin Towers, unless these were hurriedly planted, or the photographs of these parts faked.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/aircraft.html

    Sure I can see my hand in front of my face, but is it faked? Is the mental image I can see being created by a mind-control system I don’t know about? Could be.

  18. @jFranklin

    I’m always looking for qualified people to argue against my own interpretations. It helps me figure out how sure I am that I’m right. (“If THIS is the best counterargument…”) This interview shows how weak anti-controlled-demolition arguments really are. Hiroshimas worth of gravitational energy!! I don’t know what Denis was smoking when he came up with that one.

  19. KenR says:

    Wow. Dennis lost me when he opened with ad hominem. I have no respect for that. The move of a worm. I disregard his opinion about anything now.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
  20. tanabear says:
    @Iris

    In reality, no plane crashed on the Twin Towers. Anybody with an honest mind, humble enough to accept to having been fooled by the media reports, can understand it simply by looking at the surreal photographs of ghost “planes” sailing unhindered into steel towers as if they were made of smoke.

    The no-planers strike again. Other than Judy Wood’s space beam from outer space, I can’t think of a more pointless or nonsensical distraction to 9/11 Truth than “no-planers.” Now it is possible that these weren’t commercial airlines. They could’ve been some beefed-up dressed-up military plane that actually hit the towers. Or maybe a missile was fired right before impact, or maybe there was an explosion within the structure right before the plane hit.

    The Naudet Brothers were filming a documentary on the New York Fire Department that day. They filmed the plane hitting the North Tower. You can tell before the plane impacts that the firemen hear a low flying aircraft as they begin to look around for it. Then the plane impacts the building. If there was no plane then why did they react to the sound of a non-existent plane flying overhead 5 seconds or so before some internal explosions went off in the building?

  21. @Iris

    Thanks Iris. You are so right about the planes having been created with CGI. There are just so MANY facets to this official story that can be shown to be impossible/untrue but the planes/no planes argument wasn’t brought up in/during this debate and I’m glad you DID introduce it. Good job.

    • Replies: @Iris
  22. PanFlute says:

    The profound arrogance of Denis is evident. The nonsense of his explanation hit the red when he explained the upward thrust of the steel as a bouncing ball!? A ball is full of air if he knows. Tell him to go to the top of empire building and throw a ball and a steel rod to see the bounces.
    Another obvious observation is that he wants to convince us that the fourteen floors above the impact level were turned to dust while no energy was applied to them except gravity.
    I admire the patience of Dr Harris staying composed while facing such an impolite and opinionated person.

  23. PanFlute says:
    @Iris

    Another obvious missing evidence is the nose of the plane shown exiting the tower intact.
    Were the Black boxes ever found?

  24. I think that Denis Rancourt probably has his heart in the right place and is sincerely putting forth an opinion which he believes to have merit. The reason I say this is because I, myself held to that position for the longest time in face of much adversity. I was accused of being a plant too … etc. etc. And of course, my own motivation was pure as the driven snow. lol.

    What I DO object to, however, is when people appeal to their own expertise and authority to try to settle an argument. I think that only reveals the person’s insecurity and uncertainty. Every argument requires it’s own set of logic and reason and the greatest authorities make some of the biggest mistakes … while the best experts say some of the stupidest things! Doesn’t Denis even admit that many scientific papers are full of rubbish? Who writes that stuff? Aren’t they ALL experts (in their own eyes)?

    Forget all the “qualifications” and use solid evidence, logic and reasoning to prove arguments. That’s all we really need. The training is merely a bonus for handling things more neatly.

    I can sort of understand Denis’ position … if it’s at all like mine was. Here’s what I myself thought at the time.

    Was there any POSSIBLE WAY that the official version could be proven correct? If so … then unfounded claims would one day be swept away like a prop on a mouse trap and everyone in the truth movement would be left with egg on their faces. They’d be annihilated; finished. So I attempted to prove that the official version COULD actually have happened as it was presented.

    For building 7 however, I made no effort to argue. It was simply too obvious to have been a natural collapse. I just sort of put that one “on the shelf” so to speak. I didn’t want that one muddying the waters.

    What’s more, I couldn’t see any possible way that the twin towers could have been “mined” in advance without anyone noticing.

    Which argument was more powerful: that the buildings COULD have collapsed from plane crashes, fires and gravity … or that somehow, someone(s) got into those buildings and for WEEKS … prepped them without anyone noticing anything strange? The latter seemed more impossible to me.

    UNTIL I heard Richard Gage giving a presentation. Now, it’s probably not his elocutionary power that swayed me to topple … but probably more that I was about ready to capitulate anyway … and so I listened to him very intently to make sure I understood him perfectly.

    When he pointed out that heavy steel girders were thrown upward and outward at speeds of 70 mph … embedding themselves into buildings a block or more away … I finally had to concede that this could NOT have resulted from a gravitational pull.

    But, here’s the thing about self destruction caused by mass and momentum alone vs. destruction caused by the addition of gravity … which causes the confusion, I believe.

    When you consider (as I did) that a snow slide or avalanche starts out small and grows exponentially larger from the accumulation of gravitational forces acting on dislodged material … and then apply it to the twin towers … couldn’t THAT account for the towers destroying themselves, just like an avalanche causes destruction?

    Here’s an example, if you want to check it out for yourself.

    It starts off with 3 planted explosions at the top of the mountain and then there’s a long wait before we can actually see the avalanche going over the cliff in the middle of the scene.

    However, we DON’T see any material LOFTING upward UNTIL the avalanche hits rising ground on the opposite side of the valley.

    As long as falling material strikes moveable material, the falling material will simply slow down in velocity while the dislodged material accelerates in speed downward from the force of gravity. All motion is downward and along the path of the initial movement. It’s only when stuff hits the ground that is “immovable” that we see reflected energy lifting debris up into the air.

    That’s how the towers SHOULD have fallen if they had been brought down exclusively by gravity. Nothing should have lifted or been thrown sideways (with any significant effect) until it hit the ground.

    Once I’d been convinced in my own mind that this was definitely not a simple gravitational destruction, I felt that I then needed to explain HOW such an extensive explosive rigging could have occurred without being noticed by everyday traffic.

    It then occurred to me that the WTC towers most likely would have had all electrical and telephone services contained WITHIN the floors themselves … rather than coming through the walls. This would allow far greater “portability” of such services. At the time I wrote an email to Christopher Bollyn, expressing my thoughts and he published my letter in an article entitled Was Super Thermite in WTC floor ducts? That was on May 30 2011, if anyone cares to check it out. https://www.bollyn.com/9-11-archive-2011/#article_13186

    Amazingly, Christopher was able to FIND actual blueprint drawings for those floors which confirmed my hunch. Thanks forever, Chris!~

    In this scenario, thermite powder (and possibly other nitrogen based explosives) would have been BLOWN INTO the ductwork in the floors from a central “electrical room” which no one but maintenance workers would have had access to. Then … detonators would have been inserted into the duct ends and sort of cemented into place to prevent any rapid gas expansion to escape. At the set time, these detonators would then have been set off sequentially via internet connection from a nearby building using computer(s) to do the sequence timing and being channeled by the fire/communication system of each building. (Remember that the fire services didn’t work normally on ANY of the buildings that day … including building 7?)

    With explosions occurring INSIDE of the floors, the compression factor would have caused “all at once” detonation to occur within the floors which would then surpass the speed of sound inside of the concrete material … turning it into dust.

    Now, THAT would account for the floors blowing up and out … likely throwing the external skeleton out into little bits at the same time.

    I remember reading an account by a tower tenant employee or employer that … in the weeks before 9/11 they would come into their office and everything was covered by a fine dust. They thought the cleaners weren’t doing their jobs … but the problem persisted despite the cleaners being taken to task for it. Well … if the villains WERE blowing a fine dust into the duct work at night … guess what would happen? The dust would come flying out of the floor receptacles!

    For the CORE though, a different technique would have been needed.

    The core consisted of many hollow square columns that would have been accessible from the hat truss section of the buildings. The hat trusses occupied the top 3 floors of each tower and were essentially a no-man’s land. No one was allowed up there except for authorized personnel. Perhaps thermite was lowered down into the hollow columns with tampons and shaped containers to cause cutting and internal melting of the columns?

    The hat trusses are no longer mentioned by anyone but they WERE a topic of considerable interest back in the day.

    These were gigantic structures, occupying a full 3 floors at the top of each tower. Their purpose was to hold the outside skeleton “rigid” with the inside core columns so that expansion and contraction of the steel(s) wouldn’t result in the floors sloping up to the outside in the summer and the opposite way in the winter. In the summer, the external columns would essentially support the full weight of the buildings -since they’d be longer from expansion- through the hat truss … and in the winter the central columns would be longer and support the outside walls through the hat trusses.

    My point in mentioning the hat trusses is that they could easily have been used to hide workmen pouring thermite into the central core columns but also … that it would have been absolutely impossible for these massive trusses to have completely disappeared after the collapse! Heck, even airplanes dropping down from 2000 feet are still recognizable after a pancake into the ground! Yet, the only sign of ANYTHING found of the roofs of these buildings was a small stub of the antenna on the north tower. What happened to the hat trusses? They should have been laying atop the rubble practically unscathed … if gravity were the only force at play.

    I reckon that all of the burning time after the alleged plane strikes was actually, mostly the hat trusses being destroyed by charges of thermite. This would have created the white smoke issuing from the top of the towers and also accounted for the burning metal flowing out of the severed building tops.

    And finally, the mysterious tipping but then straightening of the south tower’s top section …

    … what really happened there?

    Well, I contend that the tipping did NOT get corrected. A huge portion of the top section fell over sideways onto the top of the Marriott Hotel, practically demolishing it. However, as it fell, it also disintegrated as well … because there was virtually no internal structure left to hold it together. We saw that top section seemingly turn into rubble before falling and that’s likely what it was too! It didn’t fall over; it fell apart as it went over.

    And, of course, this simply could NOT have happened if only gravitational forces and office fires had been at play.

  25. RouterAl says:

    Veterans Today did a good article on the use of modified nuclear charges to bring down the twin towers
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/12/30/breathtaking-solving-nuclear-9-11-the-pommer-report/

    After reading the Dr Judy Wood book What Happened to the Towers , I was looking for a sensible explanation as to what happened to the towers and this article answered most of my questions. What started me questioning the narrative was no one explained where did the window glass go and where did the 1100 bodies who completely disappeared go. There were 32,000 panes of glass in each tower, 9 feet high and 22 inches wide. If the building pancaked down those sheets of glass would be blown into the streets surrounding the towers, there would have been glass everywhere. A sheet of glass dropping from 1000 feet up hitting the ground would be like a bomb, when it hit the ground at 120 mph. The firemen and police would have been walking over mountains of broken glass anyone hit by the glass or shards of the glass would have been cut to pieces. Yet as far as I am aware no one was hurt by glass on the day. The 1100 missing bodies could not even be traced via DNA analysis , there was nothing left, a body falling from height makes a mess when it lands but there is still a substantive body still left once on the ground. That these bodies completely vanished so much so that not even a tooth could be identified is mysterious.
    One thing is for sure it was nothing to do with Bin Laden from his cave in the mountains.

    • Replies: @Iris
  26. Scotist says:

    ‘It’s sad to see the dying embers of 911 trutherism.’

    It might appear that way, but there’s a lot going on behind the scenes.

    The number of architects and engineers who have signed AE911Truth’s petition is up to 3,389.

    There’s a new truther movie called Seven: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/748-how-we-expose-tens-of-millions-to-wtc-7-use-all-seven-revenue-to-run-more-ads

    Newly discovered eyewitness accounts: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/747-newly-discovered-eyewitness-account-puts-nist-in-a-corner-on-wtc-7-explosions

    American Society of Civil Engineers president has been challenged on the issue: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/749-ae911truth-presents-to-200-engineers-challenges-asce-president-elect

    All 541 members of Congress have been informed on the relevant evidence: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/731-dear-congress-you-won-t-be-able-to-say-you-weren-t-informed-about-9-11

    The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry isn’t resting on their laurels either: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/730-the-latest-on-9-11-legal-actions-an-interview-with-mick-harrison-and-david-meiswinkle

    If you’re interested, Andy Steele’s weekly podcast is still going strong: http://911freefall.com/

  27. Thank you Kevin for bringing the two gentlemen together. It is good to hear people’s opinion that defy simple logic. Denis seems to play with words like politician and throwing all kinds of jargon. In my days I used to calculate explosion and their effects or anticipated destruction.
    Energy in any form will be converted into pressure or heat. There were no high temperature recorded. And what happened to pressure wave that are supposed to be generated resulting from tons of Joule, Kilowatts, or BTU, or TNT or whatever. The TNT values that Denis is fond of mentioning repeatedly are converted into pressure waves to assess the damage. He forgot to bring it up.

    The rest of Denis statements were side distraction. His going to Hiroshima (Hell I have been to Hiroshima so what), He is professor of material science? Big deal?
    Greenspan was chairman of the FED. The guy hardly could make coherent sentences.

    It would be interesting to read Denis articles, supporting calculation with assumptions. May be is reading too much theory of relativity. E=mC2 and everybody says …..Yah, yah. and more Yah

  28. @The King is a Fink

    The Pentagon “attack” was shown to be completely phony when the original hole in the building was photographed. A plane has 2 engines, so where are the holes the heaviest and most dense part of a plane would have made? There was only one hole. At a minimum, there should have been two holes from the dense engines with a third from the fuselage between them.

    Add to that the fact that the Navy team investigating the unaccounted for $2 Trillion that Rumsfeld announced the day before was the primary pentagon target and that building 7 in New York was their data backup site and you get 2+2=4. The pentagon hit was to cover up the DOD’s misappropriation of $2 Trillion dollars. They needed to destroy all the records and the people doing the investigating, so they blew them up along with their records with a missile that is designed to fly into buildings.

    • Replies: @Iris
  29. chrimony says:
    @Iris

    Oh noes, not the “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” meme. The fire was hot enough to soften the beams to the point where they lost their structural integrity. The whole argument is a waste of time that focuses on fringe theories of HOW, that distracts from the known WHO. Hint: Dancing Israelis.

    • Replies: @tanabear
  30. R2b says:

    Denis is purporting a theory that says the top of one of these buildings, beginning to fall, releases the energy inherent in the matter of the building below!
    But that is physically impossible!
    The top is surely heavy, but it is not falling from higher than close to the rest of the building.
    The lower part of the building would just continue to carry its weight, as constructed for.
    And the loosend top should have fallen to the ground.
    This is theoretical physics with non whatsoever scientific approach.
    So the only way this could happen, is to damage the structure with explosives.
    Likewise the Chandler-clip clearly shows a succession of explosisions, top down, and a totally disappearing structure.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Old Brown Fool
  31. Iris says:
    @R2b

    Denis is purporting a theory that says the top of one of these buildings, beginning to fall, releases the energy inherent in the matter of the building below!
    But that is physically impossible!

    Exactly, this is complete nonsense, as all the “pancacking” theory is, which is actually what Mr Rancourt is promoting.

    This theory is obviously stupid because the “inherent energy” could only have been gravity.
    Since the structure underneath the top of the building had been calculated by design to support its weight, the hypothesis leads again to NIST’s theory that the underneath structure was somehow compromised enough by invisible fire offices to melt and give up.

    The counter-example is obvious: it is WTC7, which was also allegedly consumed by fire for 7 hours, and was still proven by the UAF study to have come down by controlled demolition, not by thermal weakening of the structural steel
    https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

    In other terms, if the so-called “office fires” couldn’t not have weakened WTC7 to the point of collapse within 7 hours, then they certainly could not have achieved such result on the Twin Towers within a much shorter 1,5 hour timeframe.

  32. tanabear says:
    @chrimony

    Oh noes, not the “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” meme. The fire was hot enough to soften the beams to the point where they lost their structural integrity.

    This is one of the most commonly repeated falsehoods by the “debunkers”. There is no evidence that the fires heated up the steel columns to the point where they lost structural integrity.

    Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their
    temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC
    . (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)

    However, the “debunkers” will go on repeating this falsehood ad infinitum.

  33. Iris says:
    @RoatanBill

    The Pentagon “attack” was shown to be completely phony when the original hole in the building was photographed

    The alleged Pentagon “plane” didn’t make just one hole in the Pentagon. It actually managed to cut through 3 rings of reinforced concrete buildings, and made an exist on the other side.

    Its exit hole on the 3rd ring is the round-shape gap to the right of the photo; its trajectory is shown by the red straight line.

    Of course, no plane, not even a military jet can achieve that. The Pentagon was hit by a projectile capable of piercing reinforced-concrete walls multiple times, so most likely a cruise missile.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  34. Iris says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Thanks for your reply.

    FWIW, acknowledging that there were no planes at the WTC is not disrespect towards the victims; it is disrespect for the 911 institutional lies.

    Physicists and engineers know that it is impossible for an aluminium plane to penetrate 2-3rows of sturdy structural steel; this idea violates every principle of material science. It is simply grotesque.

    The statement problem is one of conservation of momentum, and can be expressed in this completely equivalent way: if by some miracle the plane had been hanging still, static in the air, with the Twin approaching it at 500 mph and hitting it at such speed, would one expect the plane to penetrate the Tower? Well, this is highly unbelievable thing we are told has happened on 9/11.

    Physics arguments may not be obvious to everybody, but common sense is.

    Do the Hazerkhani footage still frames below look like that of a real plane?
    A plane that upon crashing on a sturdy structural steel façade does not break, does not bend, does not twist, does not shed any debris, as if sailing through immaterial fog?

    Does the self-healing properties of the building look logical too , as no damage appears on the façade as soon as the “plane” is absorbed?

    Not everybody is necessarily interested in Physics, but people can chose to use their old good common sense and stop being taken for gullible imbeciles. The 9/11 videos of plane crashes are an insult to basic human intelligence.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
  35. @tanabear

    You should at least attempt to be accurate when you are attempting to argue against a position. NO WHERE did Judy Wood say anything about a “space beam from outer space”.

    I don’t know for certain if her theories about Directed Energy Weapons will prove to be true. I do know that whatever was used to cause steel beams to disintegrate in mid air, and cause around 90% of the Twin Towers to turn into dust is not a weapon that is widely known. Is it possible that this technology was based on Tesla’s work? Sure, the ZOG has had Tesla’s papers since 1943.

    Whatever caused the buildings to disintegrate was not kerosene fires.

    And with respect to the plane thing; I don’t know if there were or were not planes. I DO know that planes don’t leave Wile E Coyote punch outs in the side of concrete and steel buildings, that’s ridiculous nonsense.

    • Replies: @Iris
  36. @Iris

    You are, of course, correct.

    I was referring to the original hole on the outside of the building. There should have been 2 huge holes where the engines impacted the structure and a more modest hole where the aluminum cigar tube and biologic cargo hit. There should also have been the wreckage of the two almost indestructible multi ton engines as part of the debris.

    The entry hole was expanded to a much larger area of destruction hours after the impact and that’s the picture that was featured on TV.

    • Thanks: Iris
  37. @Iris

    I’ve been afraid to go camping since 911. Because on 911 I learned that the kerosene in my camp stove will cause the steel pot I use to disintegrate. And a building 700 yards away to sit down into its own footprint.

    • Thanks: ThreeCranes
    • LOL: Iris, Thomasina
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  38. @tanabear

    Yes, (((they))) just happened to be filming a “documentary” about the NYFD on that day. So sweet.

    (Sorry, I’m LOLing as I type.)

    And, magically, their camera swerved into the exact direction of the plane sound even though that large reddish, brick building obscured it’s direction. So, how did they know to put steady focus on the WTC buildings? Gee, how did they know? (lol, again)

  39. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Whatever caused the buildings to disintegrate was not kerosene fires.

    This question, at least, has been settled without any possible further discussion, as it was undisputedly answered by science: the energy used for WTC controlled demolition was mandatorily of nuclear nature.

    1) The continued presence of molten steel at the WTC:

    2) as well as the three months-long heat release process, recorded by satellite infrared thermography of the building footprints hotspots and acknowledged by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani:

    are two giant red flags that, once noticed, are a punch in the face to any physicist.

    French Physics academic Pr Francois Roby, startled by these hard facts, decided to assess the value of the thermal energy released by the WTC after its collapse, using century-old, perfectly established heat transfer equations.

    Although his assessment was only a low estimate, considering free convection process, but neither radiation nor conduction, his calculation came up with a stratospheric figure of 10^15 Joules (1 peta Joules).

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02004696

    Such figure is in the order of magnitude of the monthly energy production of a 900 MW nuclear reactor.

    Ergo, the energy used for the controlled demolition of the WTC was of nuclear nature. This is a scientifically established fact, since nobody was able to find a flaw in his calculation.

    His work was the subject of a recent article by Mr Barrett:
    https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_9-11-physics-debate-were-the-three-world-trade-center-buildings-demolished-with-nuclear-devices/

  40. @Genrick Yagoda

    Congratulations. You’re finally free. Your mind’s been liberated. You are a doctrinaire liberal. The world as it is no longer exists for you. You have unfriended it. How I envy you. I’m still stuck in boring old subject/object dichotomy. Sigh.

  41. @Iris

    I’m not discounting that the newest generation of some type of nukes played a role in the destruction of the towers. If I were the planner, I’d make certain to use everything at my disposal, including both nukes and nano-thermite, and whatever else I had in my bag of tricks.

    I just don’t see how nukes explain everything, though. Such as cars 3 blocks away from WTC7 catching on fire when the “smoke” rolls toward them. If these cars were to catch fire from a nuke, it would be instant, not delayed.

    Nor does it explain why people were hanging outside of the building prior to the “collapse”. Firefighters have said it was raining people. That is not normal in a fire. People die curled up in corners, they don’t commit suicide en masse by jumping out of windows.

    There was something else very mysterious that happened, in addition to all the other proven technology.

    • Replies: @Iris
  42. Iris says:
    @RouterAl

    A sheet of glass dropping from 1000 feet up hitting the ground would be like a bomb, when it hit the ground at 120 mph. The firemen and police would have been walking over mountains of broken glass anyone hit by the glass or shards of the glass would have been cut to pieces.

    This is an excellent argument which just by itself crucifies the official NIST narrative.

    There is no satisfactory official explanation as to why large quantities of glass, at least from the lower floor of the Towers, were not found in large quantities around the building’s footprints.

    And nobody can invoke the mystic “office fires” since glass melts at temperatures even higher than steel, between 1400 to 1600 degree C.

    The reason neither glass, nor structural steel, nor concrete, have survived the catastrophe in realistic debris pile quantities is because all three material were turned into dust. This is the grey clouds of dust we see people fleeing in the photos of the Towers collapsing.

    As a logical conclusion, it is obvious from the photos of the Towers collapsing in gigantic torrents of fine dust that the materials making the Twin Towers were already dustified even before the Towers had touched ground. The North Tower below is still barely standing while the dust cloud already formed around it.
    Dustification is the cause of the collapse, not its consequence.

    Such thorough disintegration process can only be reached by an extremely powerful supersonic pressure wave. It is commonly called the “blast” and always follows any explosion.

    Except that, in the case of the WTC, the explosive used was so incredibly powerful that it was able to dustify 250,000+ tons of structural steel on one go, as well as concrete and glass incidentally.

    The WTC was demolished by the means of underground nuclear explosives.
    The force of the blast (pressure shockwave) and of its disintegration capability is something we are not used to see, not since the 1960’s anyway.
    It is in the order of magnitude of underground nuclear detonations, similar to this experimental detonation that dustifies rock and turns it into dust clouds:

    • Thanks: Thomasina
    • Replies: @hardlooker
    , @tanabear
  43. bcos says:
    @Iris

    Great synopsis of the day’s technicalities. Thank you.

    And I’ve come to discover that this was not only a false-flag, or an inside job, but also so much more. Over 800 years in the making, it was to be an Event. The Grand Event. The symbolic death of the Christian world. Invented by rabbis who buried the concept deep within Kabbalah, as payback/punishment to the Christian world (code word = Edom, or Esau – the jealous brother of Jacob/Israel in the Bible) for the Crusades. When the Jews were, once again, expelled and banished from Jerusalem. Kabbalah infiltrated into the upper echelons of the Vatican during the Renaissance, and the culmination was the Gregorian calendar. It GUARANTEED that the Egyptian New Year’s Day of August 29 (6/29) would slowly shift to September 11 (9/11) by the turn of the upcoming millenium. 9/11 was on the calendar beginning in 1583, and shortly after its implementation, John Dee & the Protestant world were clued into the secret, and developed Freemasonry & Rosicrucianism as the vehicles to carry the event forward into the future. Protestants+Jews vs. the Catholic world, and it turns out the Protestant+Jewish side beat out the Vatican in grabbing the New World & being in possession of the government of the new land, as well as re-creating Israel. But they all knew it was coming. Insiders in all the groups.

    A Hail Mary pass, thrown by rabbis
    A Snowball, begun small by rabbis, and rolled into something way bigger over time
    A Fuse, lit by the Vatican, giving the Event a specific day in the calendar, far off into the future


  44. Why does it have to be nucular? Why can’t it just be regular old controlled demolition like they do with old casinos and such?

    • Replies: @Iris
  45. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    I just don’t see how nukes explain everything, though. Such as cars 3 blocks away from WTC7 catching on fire when the “smoke” rolls toward them. If these cars were to catch fire from a nuke, it would be instant, not delayed.

    It is because the several effects of a nuclear detonation don’t have the same order of time constants. A pressure shockwave, that generated the dust, is almost instantaneous. While heat, in and underground nuclear detonation, is conducted to the surface by matter, hence much slower process than the former.

    Nor does it explain why people were hanging outside of the building prior to the “collapse”

    There is no doubt that the poor people trapped in the superior floors knew they were going to die. Possibly because they were cornered by fires subsiding from the explosions, but also because the destruction of surrounding slab would have made it clear they could not be rescue from inside the building.

    You know this tragic photo of victim Edna Clinton, whose mere presence both proves that:
    1) There was no raging “office fires”
    2) Where she was standing, the slab floors were destroyed beyond the hope of access, something an aircraft could never have achieved.

  46. @Henry's Cat

    It’s sad to see the dying embers of 911 trutherism. Almost everyone abandoned it.

    You clearly aren’t paying attention.

    Prior to 2010, skeptics of the official account totaled about 1/3 of the American population. Today, they’ve exceeded critical mass:

    https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

  47. I agree with your photo of Edna. And in that context, the people hanging out the windows, taking off their clothes, and jumping out makes even less sense. Since there were no raging fires ( and the firemen in the building at the floors in question who told their captain they could put everything out with 2 hoses confirms this) why raining people? It doesn’t make sense.

    Referencing the fires consuming the cars, they burst into flames and caught fire starting on the hoods, ie the tops of the cars, not the bottoms. So, respectfully, the underground transmission does not add up.

    Moreover, the building I was referring 2 was WTC7, which looked much more like a conventional detonation that the WTC 1&2. The penthouse fell inward a few seconds ( I think 7?) before the building sat down. That is not consistent with a nuke in that case.

    And if it was conventional, why did the cars burst into flames on their hoods?

    • Replies: @Iris
  48. Iris says:
    @obwandiyag

    Why does it have to be nuclear? Why can’t it just be regular old controlled demolition like they do with old casinos and such?

    The use of chemical explosives for conventional demolition, regularly spaced at structural nodes of the buildings, was never a satisfactory explanation because of the absence of significant boom noise.

    Apart from the massive explosions at the top of each Twin Towers, the minor “explosions” that seem to show on the videos, or those reported by the firemen, although certainly true, would have been too weak to demolish such oversized buildings.

    Any explosion always creates a supersonic pressure shockwave, which in turn, if the explosion was aerial, creates a sonic boom, a big “Bang” noise; this happens because the pressure wave travels faster than sound.

    We don’t hear any significant sonic boom in the videos, nor do we see a significant visual manifestation (flame, fireball) of chemical explosives going off when the Towers collapse. So it wasn’t chemical explosives, and definitely not aerial “mini-nukes” neither, whose fireballs are impossible to miss.

    Short answer, it is certain that the WTC demolition was nuclear because the thermal energy released as secondary effect was calculated by a low estimate and found to be in the order of magnitude of nuclear explosives and nuclear reactors.

    Nuclear explosives release approximately a 1000 times more energy per kilogram than chemical explosives and fuels (thermite, nanothermite, kerosene, wood, oil, gas, all belong to the latter category). Only nuclears were compact enough to fit underneath the three WTC buildings that came down and while still releasing over 1 peta Joules of thermal energy to the atmosphere.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  49. Iris says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Since there were no raging fires ( and the firemen in the building at the floors in question who told their captain they could put everything out with 2 hoses confirms this) why raining people?

    I did not say there were no fires. There were indeed fires subsequent to the initial main explosions, but they were localised in the places where the nanothermite was planted and ignited to simulate the “planes” crash, not at the internal structural nodes NIST pretends they were.

    Furthermore, the molten steel flowing out and captured on videos of the South Tower proves without possible discussion that the explosives which detonated there were able to melt steel at over 1000 degree C, something neither kerosene nor any other substance present could have achieved.

    So may be this is why these people jumped: because they were facing flows of molten metal coming their way without any escape route left.

    Referencing the fires consuming the cars, they burst into flames and caught fire starting on the hoods, ie the tops of the cars, not the bottoms. So, respectfully, the underground transmission does not add up.

    You misunderstood me. The heat from the explosion did not com from underneath the cars, the heat was transported by the dust which kept coming, except that the first waves of dust were colder, the later ones increasingly warm. The main “cauldron” by which heat would have escaped was the buildings footprints.

    The process of self-ignition of hot surfaces, or flammables catching fire just because they get in contact with hot surfaces is classic engineering, especially in hazardous industries, chemical, oil&gas:
    https://www.atex.info/hazardex.com/define/hot-surface

  50. @Iris

    Yes, Iris, the only means for providing that much energy, that quickly, is nuclear in nature. Fission or fusion, I don’t care. Only nuclear.

    In that connection, whoever did 9/11 also had the awareness, wherewithal, and determination to prevent the public from learning (over some decades) how greatly advanced had become nuclear weapon capabilities – one example being how bunker-buster bombs are called that to give the impression that they penetrate deeply buried concrete fortresses by some strictly kinetic-mechanical-explosive process, like DU-tipped artillery penetrates the armored shell of a tank. It is absurd to suggest a lightweight missile at speed can “bust” its way through dozens of meters of rock and concrete, much less remain in sufficiently undeformed condition to light off its warhead inside or near the ultimate target. Some people might assume it sets off a bunch of staged explosions to clear the way. Sure, even if that were possible, the first charge would surely compromise any intended to follow.

    No, the way a bunker-buster works is by melting and vaporizing its path through the ground and concrete. Everything burns, melts, vaporizes, or goes to plasma, if its temperature gets high enough. And if, by this means, the missile can maintain a high enough velocity as it enters the “bunker”, it does its job as a kinetic, not explosive weapon.

    Why couldn’t all three of the following have been part of the destruction formula:

    1) Promotion of the idea that planes (and rabid Muslims! at the controls) hitting the buildings in a (badly done) CGI pyrotechnic extravaganza, to give the stupid public something visibly memorable to blame for the collapse (how to explain these Muslims having no ability to fly the planes? Easy, in Hollywood, if you have passion, that’s all you need.).
    2) Thermite/nanothermite, planted and deployed according to principles of controlled-demolition, this to make sure the collapse envelope was directed, limited, and properly contained.
    3) nuclear weapons deployed underneath WTC1 and WTC2, providing the immense horsepower necessary to dustify not only concrete, but also to pulverize high-density toilets and fire-safes (bloody near indestructible, and found in every law office and financial institution) along with lesser solids like office furniture, desks, and computer equipment.

    Without talking about overall purposes (the vast strategy of the 911 m1ndf*ckers), the above three tactics respectively correspond to an imperatives interpretation going something like this:

    1. ESTABLISH, AND REINFORCE WITH PROPAGANDA: Frame some radical Muslims as hijackers of jets, doing exactly what earlier Hollywood movies predicted terrorists would try to do (despite Condi Rice claiming no one suspected any such thing would occur, that’s just BS intended to deflect an abrogation-of-duty accusation). Give these bad Muslims a face within 30 minutes of the event, so Americans can better fix the bogeyman in what remains of their minds. Figure out a way, however tenuous the connection, to imply these few bad apples are really no different from ALL Muslims, only by degree of insane hatred. If someone wonders about the story, pile on an elaboration. If people point out holes in the story, add more details every bit as ridiculous as the one being questioned. It’s a story that even the average American might not be relied upon to believe, until they learn it happened just like a movie said it would, so it’s plausible after all (physical science be damned, the movies are reality). And the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq become the military version of question-begging – “of course the Muzzies did it, why else would we attack ’em?”. And let’s not forget that when an attack comes from the air, the investigation belongs to the EFF-BEE-EYE, and all the respondent agencies are federal too (NIST, FAA…).

    2. EXECUTE, AND DENY: the application of demolition science was needed to limit the buildings experiencing complete destruction to those within the WTC complex proper, ie., inside the Silverstein group and its captive underwriters, BUT, because anyone who accepts the existence and deployment of pre-planted explosives will shortly start disbelieving the Muzlimz-did-it fairy tale, the very suggestion of controlled demolition had to be ruthlessly and relentlessly squashed (also because, if controlled demolition catches on, the perps might, just might, end up defending against the real money shot, No. 3, the nuke operation, since controlled demolition is a mighty thing, and so is gravity, but both put together can’t explain all that concrete turning into baby powder). Now maybe, if it comes to that, they might allow controlled demolition to explain the Legend of the Fall of WTC7 – like, the story could end up morphing into “we had a national security reason to pull down the building at 4 in the afternoon on that horrible day (but never you mind the actual reason)”. However risky it would be for them to “confess” to that, it’s still not the death of the story told by No. 1, and best of all, they can say, ‘well, guess that’s the end of it, oops, you found us out, looks like some folks fibbed’, – but that will end any talk about No. 3, the truly untouchable premise.

    3. EXECUTE, AND NEVER EVER ALLOW ANY TALK OF THE ATTACK BEING NUCLEAR: As ably recounted by Iris, only a nuke can provide the energy necessary to account for the verifiable results, only a nuke can provide said energy suddenly enough (‘Gotta get this show, er, skyscraper on the road! We can’t let the damned building burn for half a week, people escaping and living to talk, engineers giving their analysis as she burns in the background, airline employees getting interviewed, etc.’). Only a nuke buried in the ground is completely deniable (since as every American knows, a nuclear bomb can only come from the sky). And, as with No. 2, knowledge of this element of the attack on 911 is lethal to the purposes following from the satisfaction of No. 1 – even worse, actually, because the list of actors capable of placing advanced tactical nuclear weapons under the WTC complex is even shorter than the list of who has expertise with controlled demolition, or who you have to know to get your hands on nanothermite (or thermite, for that matter).

    Yes, ’twas nukes felled the towers.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  51. E_Perez says:
    @Iris

    What do you respond to the following:

    1) A nuclear explosion would have left radioactivity, which could not have been concealed. Has radioactivity been noticed?

    2) Controlled demolition could not be achieved from explosives at ground level alone. So this was a combination of ground and higher level explosives?

    • Replies: @Iris
  52. @Iris

    It doesn’t have to be nuclear. All it needs to be is thermobaric which is what nano-thermite is. And nuclear would release radiation that would easily be detected. There is no such thing as non-radioactive nuclear explosion. If it were nuclear, the nuclear daughter products would have been all over NYC. No such radiation was ever detected.

    And nano-thermite is far more recent technology. We developed nuclear technology in the 1940’s. Nano technology wasn’t developed until the near end of the century.

    • Replies: @RodW
  53. @hardlooker

    Right. Without creating a trace of radiation.

    • Replies: @hardlooker
  54. @Iris

    Respectfully, the fires on the cars began on hoods. The cars were 3 blocks away from WTC7.

    Fires did not start when the building sat down. The fires started after the “smoke” was on it’s way, but before the “smoke” made it to the cars. All of this does not agree with your positions and explanations.

    Neither does your explanation regarding people jumping, as there were no lava flows anywhere near the floors in question. Melissa Doi for example was on the 83rd floor of the South Tower. Her recorded phone call before the building disintegrated was telling 911 dispatch that even though there were no fires it was “very very hot. It’s so hot”.

    This is not meant to challenge your otherwise good work. But we are destined to disagree on this, and I’m certain that in this instance, the evidence is on my side.

    Thanks for your otherwise very compelling work.

  55. Biff says:

    Modern buildings of robust design such as the twin towers do not collapse.

    Example:
    If say the 70th floor had all of its’ structural pillars taken out(something only controlled/planned demolition can do – not a plane or even a coordinated missle attack could do – well maybe 18 very lucky missles) then only the 70th floor would fail. The 69th floor would still be intact and it is designed and built to support all the floors above it, and it would do exactly that. The 69th floor would not collapse.

    It defies logic that taking out the structural integrity of an upper floor would compromise the integrity of a lower floor. That’s why architects and engineers have called out this bunk bullshit story for what it is.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  56. With respect to the famous BBC clip of the WTC7 building falling when it is clear in the background as still intact, I have wondered if they were reporting based on AP or Reuters or some other news wire agency report.
    AP and Reuters constantly demonstrate they are used to propagate institutional propaganda to this day, so to me at least, this would explain the clear discrepancy between what they were reporting and what could be seen.
    The wire services, who are used internationally, were used as the source or a source to construct the fabricated story.

    • Replies: @Iris
  57. @Kevin Barrett

    I don’t know what Denis was smoking when he came up with that one.

    Yes and that’s why you both should have been far more vigorous in challenging his utterly preposterous nonsense. This guy is a physicist??????

    We are so screwed if this guy is a physicist.

  58. @Biff

    Like any other tall structure, the WTC towers were built on the premise that the greatest load would be at the bottom, and loads would not be the same at the bottom as they would at the top.

    So even if the top part began to crush the bottom, since the top steel weighed around 1/5 to 1/10 or more as the steel at the bottom, and since this weight/mass was progressive toward the base, how n earth does a small amount of weight/mass “crush” a much larger amount?

    You are quite correct, everything about this fraud defies logic.

  59. @davidgmillsatty

    “Right. Without creating a trace of radiation.”

    I never said anything about a “trace of radiation” being created or not created. But you did. Your reply adds “radiation” as a presumably necessary requirement to the nuclear blast theory (by radiation, I think you mean radioactive fallout, i.e., residual radiation).

    For many reasons, residual radiation from a nuclear blast is a much more complex question than can be answered by whatever we might think is accomplished by slinging around a Geiger counter and waiting for it to click. As with other purposely obfuscated concepts driving popular nuclear-weapons mythology, the presence, type, and intensity of radioactive fallout is no longer the signature of a nuclear blast it once was. This is because, basically, newer generations of nuclear weapons are much more efficient than the earliest versions, in which a high percentage of the fissile material ended up left over as “fallout”. These days, designers can obtain more of the big three destructive effects they want – percussion, burn, and ionizing radiation (even higher in so-called “neutron bombs”) – and much less of a fourth output that was never very useful to the wrecking-ball purpose, that being residual radiation expressed as “fallout”.

    For somewhat personal reasons, I’ve been obliged to revisit my own assumptions regarding the role and nature of “nuclear fallout” (a persistent “trace of radiation”). My grandmother, located far enough from the epicenter of the Hiroshima blast to survive its first effects of blast and fire, promptly made her way down into the zone of destruction to help those still alive and suffering from burns and/or crippling trauma. Until she died at the age of 99, following the last of three bouts with cancer since August 6, 1945, it was always my assumption she acquired an ultimately lethal dose of “radiation” during nearly a week of laboring obliviously in a radioactive fallout-laden environment. But I have learned that her cancers may have more likely been the long-term result of being dosed by ionizing radiation at the moment of the blast, rather than subsequent exposure to fallout (itself mitigated by the “black rain” effect), or maybe her cancers were quite unrelated to atomic radiation received from either source that day.

    I think the fallout factor has long been overstated. If I were someone planning to covertly deploy a modern, highly efficient, dialable-output tactical nuke – one that is characteristically low-fallout in nature, I would definitely let lie the assumption that elevated “radiation” levels are necessary to establish its having been put to use. I’ve learned that residual radiation alone doesn’t tell us what we need to know about 9/11. Maybe certain isotopic evidence remains that would. But from a theoretical perspective alone, it is possible to say with considerable confidence that certain measurements or calculations, such as that solving for the total energy required to perform the observed work, do allow us to rule out every alternative source for that quantum of energy except one – the N word.

    I am a scientist, but not of the nuclear physics kind, so I wouldn’t really know precisely what to make of gross radiation measurements at the WTC site post-event, were they to be established as “trace”, significantly in excess of ambient, or some other value. That’s why I’ve been waiting patiently for the results and knowledgeable interpretation of a proper study of the radiation profile of ground-zero and the Manhattan area generally, on the day of 9/11 and since… surely this science has been done, why wouldn’t it have been, after all, it was the crime of the century and we want to fully understand it… don’t we? Alas, I’m still waiting for that enlightenment, which surprises me less with each passing year.

    Why not help me out? Elsewhere in these comments, you state: “No such radiation was ever detected.” I didn’t know that to be the case. I will now try to verify your claim. But since you brought up the matter as the single refutation offered in your reply, where is your evidence that, whatever it was that happened on 9/11, happened “without creating a trace of radiation”?

    • Replies: @Iris
  60. Iris says:
    @E_Perez

    Hi. Both are extremely relevant points and are indeed the right questions to explore.

    1) A nuclear explosion would have left radioactivity, which could not have been concealed. Has radioactivity been noticed?

    The demolition scheme that was treacherously utilised to bring down the WTC was initially an engineering demolition feature, conceived during the design of the Twin Towers in the mid-1960’s and embedded during its construction.

    It is a little boring to discuss this obsolete and abandoned technology, but once it’s understood, everything becomes clearer.

    In the 1950-60’s, the idea of using underground nuclear detonations for peaceful civil engineering purposes was very popular. The reason is because nuclear detonations are so powerful that they can save weeks/months/years of time-consuming digging.

    The USSR utilised the method to dig artificial lakes and dams. In Sept 1963, such a project was presented to President Kennedy in order to dig up a second Panama Canal.
    To date, it is estimated that at least 150 peaceful nuclear detonations were carried out for various civil engineering purposes.

    https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/peaceful-nuclear-explosions.aspx

    The nuclear charge is not detonated at the surface, in an aerial fashion, like it was the case in Hiroshima for instance.
    It is lowered deep underground in a detonation cavity, at a carefully calculated depth, and exploded. At this point, the thick layer of rock interfacing between the underground detonation point and the surface level will play the role of buffer, and stop the majority of radioactive fallout, as long as the buffer rocks are not dug up, obviously.

    The installation is represented in this picture:

    And the process further explained in the BBC article:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033893.stm

    However, it is impossible to completely prevent radioactive fallout from reaching the surface. This is because the explosion shatters the rock above it. Although an inert material, the rock is now full of cracks and crevices, through which a fraction of radioactivity will inevitably succeed in creeping up to the surface.

    This is why there was an epidemic of radiation-related (not asbestos-related) cancers among 9/11 First Responders. Over 10,000 of them were hit by radiation-related cancers, of which 2,000 at least have died.
    https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2020/09/9-11-cancer

    2) Controlled demolition could not be achieved from explosives at ground level alone. So this was a combination of ground and higher level explosives?

    Yes, exactly so.

    The aerial, high level explosives were indispensable to simulate the fake “plane” attack, and the “plane” attack scenario was indispensable to incriminate the “Saudis”, as enabling the “War on Terror” was the primary goal of 9/11.

    Using real planes was impossible: even by remotely taking automatic control of a plane, anybody on board the aircraft flying at sea level would have been in reach of telecom towers. The passengers and crew alike would have used their cell phones to raise the alarm and the planes would have been shot down by air defences.

    So instead, the top of the Twin Towers was planted with explosives, most likely the military-grade nanothermite that American scientists found in the WTC dust. In 2001, this explosive was under secret development, and available only to the US and Israel.

    The people who planted the nanothermite in preparation for 9/11 were the Israeli “art students” who worked on the Towers in the summer. They planted it in a shape that simulated the cross-section of a Boeing, including the very end tip of the wing, which is actually so stupid that it is a tell-all sign of staging.

    After the “high-level” explosives were detonated, these explosions was presented as a plane attack, and this attack was then in turn used to activate the existing, embedded demolition feature by underground nuclear detonation.

  61. Iris says:
    @Kit Walker

    With respect to the famous BBC clip of the WTC7 building falling when it is clear in the background as still intact, I have wondered if they were reporting based on AP or Reuters or some other news wire agency report.

    I have an answer; it is just my personal conclusion from publicly available information and videos, but I believe it is correct.

    The BBC journalist was just repeating what many other people on the ground were being told: that WTC7 had been so damaged by the “fires” caused by the Twin Towers destruction nearby that it will not be long before it collapses, too.

    The journalists and firemen were being told so by Larry Silverstein and his insiders circle.

    Following the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, WTC7 bore unmissable signs of explosion collateral damage: its internal staircase collapsed, its lobby was destroyed, and its façade glass panelling blown out outwards.

    Completely unexpectedly to the perpetrators, WTC7 had become a standing smoking gun screaming of controlled demolition.
    So they prepared the people on the ground by telling them it had become too dangerous and they will have to make the decision to “Pull it“, to use Silverstein’s words.

  62. Iris says:
    @hardlooker

    Alas, I’m still waiting for that enlightenment, which surprises me less with each passing year.

    Most of us, people in the 21st Century, cannot easily fathom what happened at the WTC because it was the result of an old, obsolete nuclear engineering technique.
    It was popular in the 1950-60’s, before our time, but was gradually abandoned as scientists realised that they could never fully control radioactive fallout.

    This nuclear engineering method is very different from what happened at Hiroshima.

    A Hiroshima-type aerial explosion is purposely executed so the radioactive fallout, alongside the blast and thermal effect, all contribute to the lethality of the detonation.

    But in an underground nuclear detonation, the charge’s yield and depth of burial are carefully calculated so as to utilise mostly one effect (the blast, or supersonic shockwave), while containing the other two (thermal and radioactive release) underground, and preventing them to a large extent from reaching the surface, thanks to the interposing layer of rocks.

    The process is clearly explained in this video:

  63. @Iris

    A plane that upon crashing on a sturdy structural steel façade does not break, does not bend, does not twist, does not shed any debris, as if sailing through immaterial fog?

    Reminds me of an old joke –

    Q. What’s the last thing to go through a grasshopper’s mind when he hits your car windscreen?

    A. His arse.

    Same principle applies.

    Mind you, while a lot of energy and investigational skill can be directed to dissecting the nature of the aircraft portrayed hitting the Twin Towers, I think the more important general consensus is that the official narrative is a lie and the whole charade was an almighty pre-scripted false flag.

    We don’t have to produce a forensic account of events to understand that what they say happened didn’t.

  64. @Iris

    There were indeed fires subsequent to the initial main explosions, but they were localised in the places where the nanothermite was planted and ignited to simulate the “planes” crash, not at the internal structural nodes NIST pretends they were.

    If they wanted to simulate a plane crash they could have also let off a few incendiaries so that nobody would be able to stand in a hole in the wall with no fires burning around them. If so much of what they showed us was CGI then all those people falling out of the towers could also have been CGI. And if it was a Hollywood production then CGI combined with filmed pyrotechnics could have produced whatever they wanted to show, but may have overlooked a few things, so some of us are unconvinced or confused.

    • Replies: @Iris
  65. Iris says:

    Here is a link to an article posted by commenter Miro23 (thanks Miro) in the UR Newslinks section.

    It is about the legal challenge raised by the British parents and American widow of 31-year old Briton Geoff Campbell, who died trapped in the North Tower.

    They are formally requiring the Attorney General for England and Wales, Michael Ellis to allow them to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest into Geoff’s death.
    They have compiled and wish to submit a dossier which proves that controlled demolition explosives — not aircraft — brought the buildings down.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9428743/The-conspiracy-theory-wont-rest-peace.html

  66. republic says:
    @Iris

    So what happened to Daniel Lewin,the Israeli?

    • Replies: @Iris
  67. Iris says:

    A crucially important fact I was personally completely unaware of until a few weeks ago.

    An entire WTC subway section and station were destroyed by explosions during the 9/11 attack. They were so severely damaged that it took years to re-open them again.

    Most of the subway between Park Place and Cedar Street was severely damaged in the collapse of the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001. This portion, originally under Greenwich St, ran through the middle of the World Trade Centre property. Part of the two plaza buildings, but not the Twin Towers, stood directly over the line, and so did the indoor mall or concourse at ground level.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/cortlandt.html

    This extraordinary fact in itself in a punch in the face of the NIST official narrative, as it proves that the destruction occurred at basement level. What had an underground subway station to do with alleged “planes” allegedly “flying” at 1000 feet above ground level?

    Such destruction pattern occurring below ground level can only be explained by the “underground nuclear demolition” thesis developed and proven by Pr Roby.

    An underground nuclear detonation will generate a blast, a pressure shockwave, going in all spatial directions around the detonation point, with its amplitude decreasing in reverse ratio to the square root of the distance to the detonation point.

    Furthermore, the existence of any tunnel, such as subway tunnels, will act as a path of less resistance for the blast, hence increasing the level of damage to anything within standing within such tunnels.

    • Replies: @hardlooker
  68. tanabear says:
    @Iris

    The reason neither glass, nor structural steel, nor concrete, have survived the catastrophe in realistic debris pile quantities is because all three material were turned into dust. This is the grey clouds of dust we see people fleeing in the photos of the Towers collapsing.

    It would be more precise to say that the non-metallic portions of the building turned to dust. The steel was cut into smaller pieces, but it did not turn to “dust”. If the steel was turned to dust, then NIST could not have used steel from the core and perimeter columns to determine column temperature. There would have been no need to haul the steel off for recycling to China.

    For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall… As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”
    Bill Manning Fire Engineering, January 1, 2002

    In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”
    Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002

    The WTC was demolished by the means of underground nuclear explosives.

    No. The idea of an underground nuclear blast is just more nonsense. You can see the demolition wave start at the top of the building and work its way down. It was series of small explosions, not one large one.

  69. Iris says:
    @republic

    So what happened to Daniel Lewin,the Israeli?

    I don’t know. I never found the time to research the subject of what actually happened to the 4 planes lost during 9/11, and I tend not to have opinions on subjects I haven’t researched by myself.

    There are broadly two opinions among the smarter 9/11 Truthers who have already understood that no plane crashed on the WTC:

    1) Some think that the people on-board were taken and killed elsewhere.
    I remember Mr Barrett inviting a former airline lady employee who had a very precise theory about the passengers being taken to a military base. I can’t find the article; maybe somebody who does could chip in and post the link?

    2) Other Truthers think that the planes never existed in the first place: they cannot accept that the flight numbers and details have apparently never been provided by the authorities.

    I tend to loosely be of the former opinion, because I can’t figure out why the authorities would have needed to make up the story of the fourth plane that allegedly “crashed in a field”. They just raised even more suspicion, so why make up a 4th plane, if not to justify the passing of some individuals?

    I am really agnostic on the subject.
    The truth is that a crime is considered to be a crime against humanity when the number of persons killed reaches about 100. So 9/11 was 30 times over a crime against humanity; the fact that the planes were real or not does change the exceptionally abject nature of this crime.

    • Replies: @republic
  70. @R2b

    Other than the mass-energy equivalence of matter, E = mc^2, which is impossible to release by merely throwing a mass from a height (you need to break the nucleus of an atom to release it, otherwise every boulder falling from a height will cause an explosion equal to atom bombs), the only “inherent” energy in an object lifted above the ground is its potential energy, which will be converted into kinetic energy when that object is allowed to fall down to earth (free fall, I mean). This can be calculated with the high school formula, E = mgh (= mass x acceleration due to gravity, ie 9.8 m/s^2 x height of fall). In this case, in WTC7, this mass should be the mass of the top floor, to begin with, and then the mass of each floor added to it incrementally. Let me also point out the height of fall is just one floor every time, not the whole height of the building.

    This energy is transferred onto objects that come into contact with the falling object – in this case, the remaining lower floors of the building, and is released – or rather transferred to the lower floors – as mechanical energy (breaking the objects, ie., both falling floors and stopping floors), and loud sounds. The exact quantum of this energy can be easily calculated by a Physicist. And he can verify if this energy was capable of pulverizing the lower floors into dust.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  71. @Iris

    A gravitational collapse, even one defying physical law by proceeding through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall speeds, won’t result in the manifest application of force evidenced here and elsewhere.

    We are always returned to the fundamental questions: Working back from the total observed work performed, how much energy did that require? And, what energy sources, if any, are ruled out by that number? And then, who has access to such sources as are not ruled out?

    Instead, we hear inanities such as, I can’t believe a President would kill 3,000 of his own citizens. Or, with a conspiracy this big, how could they keep it a secret?

    Answers: Who cares about his supposed scruples? First establish what happened. And, they utterly failed in keeping it secret. They only succeeded in covering up the exposure of their secret. For now.

    • Replies: @E_Perez
  72. Iris says:
    @Commentator Mike

    If so much of what they showed us was CGI then all those people falling out of the towers could also have been CGI.

    Hi Mike. Absent scientific proof, one can only make up an opinion and explain what they based it upon.

    My personal and sincere opinion is that absolutely everything we see in the 9/11 WTC videos is genuine and real, including the poor people jumping out to avoid a more horrible death by burning or asphyxiation, everything except the planes.
    The “planes” were added onto the real videos of the explosions, using video composition techniques.

    The other thing that was staged is the “random filming” by “random witnesses”.
    The Naudet brothers as well as Michael Hazerkhani were not randomly filming at the WTC: they were active executants in the conspiracy, they were the Abraham Zapruders of 9/11.

    Hazerkhani has deliberately participated in the fraud: his film, initially shown on CNN, had no comment. But on later versions, he added a phrase as if a contemporaneous comment to the effect: “Oh my God, there is plane crashing“, to re-enforce the deceit.

    The most important forgery, the earliest shown to the public, was done almost in real-time by a professional video editor called Kai Simonsen who was, I think, aboard one of the media choppers.
    It is Simonsen who made the tell-all mistake of the “Nose-In, Nose-Out” plane, because he slightly mis-assessed the movements of the helicopter filming the event.

    This mistake then obliged the perpetrators to dig themselves even deeper in the BS, by producing the “Nose-out” sequence from another viewpoint, with a ridiculous result:

    The reason why I believe that everything was genuine, except the planes, is because faking so many elements in so little time, in order to show the videos on TV, was beyond the video editing capabilities that existed in 2001.

    For the same reason, I believe that no missile was involved neither.
    9/11 Truther Ace Baker, a professional video editor himself, explained that with the limited technology available in 2001, it would have been virtually impossible to perfectly cover a real missile by overlaying the picture of a fake plane above it.

    The simplest explanation is the most likely:

    – The planes were fake because they clearly look fake on the videos.
    – There was no missile involved because it would have been too complicated to hide and too risky.
    – The explosions atop the Twin Towers were most likely due to planted nanothermite, because a scientific article that hasn’t been disproved in years says so.
    – There were active participants to the conspiracy on the ground, some filming, others testifying to having seen the planes with their own eyes.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  73. @Old Brown Fool

    There is no possible way to calculate the energy required to do the damage that was done to those buildings. To begin with, the structural steel supports were graduated, with the I-Beans having 1″ thick walls at the top, graduating to 5″ at the bottom. In no way could a small amount of weight/energy crush the larger resistance.

    But more importantly 16 Dry-type 35,000 lb transformers disappeared completely on 911. These transformers were used in the substations that were spaced throughout the towers. They turned into dust and vanished. If you (or any readers) are unfamiliar with how transformers are made, they are basically large blocks of Iron wrapped in copper windings. You could drop the entire moon of these things and they wouldn’t turn into dust. Not to mention the hundreds of miles of conduit, electrical wire, HVAC, doors, filing cabinets and everything else in the building, all of which disappeared into dust.

    Trying to apply a calculation that would have anything to do with crushing is a fool’s errand.

  74. republic says:
    @Iris

    January 30,2015 Kevin Barrett interviewed Rebekah Roth,the author of the novel,Methodical Illusion,and her theory as to what happened to the passengers at Steward Air Force base.

    Jonathan Revusky wrote on Unz o
    n April 22,2018 about Betty Ong who was on board AA 11

    • Thanks: Iris
  75. E_Perez says:
    @hardlooker

    Or, with a conspiracy this big, how could they keep it a secret?

    There is something to this counter-argument, it cannot be waved away as insanity.

    This was a huge enterprise with many potential points of failure. There must have been hundreds of persons at all levels involved in the plot, in many different places. Iris even thinks

    – There were active participants to the conspiracy on the ground, some filming, others testifying to having seen the planes with their own eyes.

    How can they all keep silence? Not even a single anonymous whistleblower?
    .

    • Replies: @Iris
  76. This rebuttal – that the controlled demolition theory needs lots of conspirators – doesn’t prove the establishment’s impossible conspiracy theory.

  77. Dr. Barrett, I just listened to 2 ‘experts’ argue for 15 minutes about how high steel will bounce. We’re past that. It’s time to get on to who did it? Do we really need to argue what gun made the powder burns at the hole in the dead man’s head, before we make an arrest?
    If so why are we ignoring Pommer’s work? Below is a link to his brilliant presentation: GROUND ZERO MODEL

    Now how do we get the guilty?

  78. @The King is a Fink

    Yes, there were no planes. It was a nuclear event.

  79. Goyboy says:

    Denis the menace.
    He believes in pile-drivers and the “pancake theory”
    What a bloody mug!
    Obviously paid to say ridiculous things like this.

  80. @Genrick Yagoda

    “We decided to pull it!’ stated the FireChief and Building 7 collapsed. If 7 collapsed why couldn’t 1 and 2 be likewise wired for collapse? Marvin Bush was head of security at Trade Center and workers would have had access nights and weekends and double pay statutory holidays. They were all wired for collapse paralleling George W watching Pro Wrestling circa 2001—Towers of Doom vs. Diesel and Big Boss Man—-Dink and Doink and Mankind— baking soda in test tube — Funny thing –FireChief was only on the air once —-but I remember it well—

  81. @Iris

    While I was going to leave this one alone … I just can’t stand it anymore, lol.

    It’s not worth fighting about -really- since, answering the 5 W’s in this case should suffice: Who, What,Where, When and Why. The How can probably only be explained by the culprits themselves who did it.

    However, if we can keep this civil as a discussion instead of a fight … we might be ok.

    First of all the question: why were the twin towers brought down from the top to bottom when building 7 was demolished in the conventional manner?

    The World Trade Center was built inside of a concrete container which was nicknamed the “bathtub.” Prior to any construction, they cut a very deep channel in the ground around the perimeter and filled it with cement as they went -dig and fill, dig and fill- and this was done to avoid caving in of earthen walls when excavating one gigantically deep hole. The purpose of the bathtub in the first place, was to keep water from the Hudson river, next to the site, from entering this tub area. Once the walls had been pour/dropped into place and allowed to cure sufficiently, they excavated the dirt out from inside of the walls and went deep enough to connect with the bedrock. It was important to go down to bedrock because the towers were going to be very high and heavy and would have to withstand extreme leveraging from wind 1000 feet up … and needed to be anchored into solid rock.

    Building 7 wasn’t actually part of the center itself; it was across Vesey St. to the north of the WTC complex and it wasn’t sitting in the bathtub area.

    By destroying the towers from the top down, floor by floor (and converting concrete into temporarily suspended fine dust) … the impact of falling material into to the bathtub container would by greatly reduced. Sure, the tub floor could easily bear the weight of the rubble but not the impact of having it all come down at once.

    For WTC7 it didn’t matter since that building wasn’t located inside of the tub .

    So in view of the fact that this bathtub exists and that care needed to be taken in order to preserve its integrity … just how would a planted subterranean nuclear bomb fit in with it?

    Where was the access shaft to get down to this bomb nest in order to change it from a 1960’s type to a modern “suitcase” type?

    Nuclear bombs have a shelf life too and have to be checked, serviced and then recyled too … every so many years … or they will fail to work. They tend to “corrode” with the continual radiation pummeling going on inside of them.

    Would they have cared at all that destroying the towers would destroy the entire site, including the bathtub (but turned out NOT to have destroyed the bathtub after all)?

    I mean, it sounds like extremely sloppy planning from the get-go to me.

    And then, IF this type of bomb had been used, (which is essentially like a gun barrel directing the charge force straight up) … how did it come about that the towers were seen to destroy themselves from the top down? I just don’t get that part. The cores of the building should have been stripped out almost instantly and gone straight up into the sky -if your theory is true … leaving only the exterior walls behind to fall inward or S-ward as they collapsed. Instead, we see a fountain of debris being thrown upward and outward and growing in size as it gets near the ground.

    And if this “gun blast” nuclear bomb destroyed the entire structures, why then the structures should have “vaporized” from the bottom up … or at least evenly bottom to top … since the source of energy was coming from the bottom.

    Instead, we saw the core columns (of the north tower) -a good portion of them- still standing after the outside walls and floors had all cleanly dropped or disintegrated. They called this the “spire”.

    Here’s a distant shot of that spire…

    You can see it to the right of the “ghost” collapse. (I can’t explain just why the entire shell appears to have shifted to the left but what you see to the right IS the core columns remaining after the collapse). These core columns then sank out of sight as well a short time later.

    Here’s a view of the north tower taken by the New York Police Department helicopter.
    http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/303385/5722368/1265910261903/dat+147.jpg?token=ZJEAFURsLKWfoPZ2xO%2Fhby4RrkQ%3D
    Again, the core columns appear to the right and (if you click the + to enlarge this image as much as possible), you can easily see the core cross bracing, fuming like a white hot furnace. Something was done to that iron work in order to make it smoke so profusely.

    The roof however, is off to the left, completely displaced from the core columns … and it’s well above those columns too. My guess is that it acted like a parachute, which is why it’s still “floating” above everything else. The dropping of this part (which would probably have a portion of the roof truss still hanging on underneath) is probably what created the ghost collapse cloud?

    My point here about these photos is that IF a deep blast-shaped nuke had been responsible … why did it leave the lowest portion of the core still standing and why was the roof still existing and coming down? It should have thrown EVERYTHING in the middle of the building straight up, sky high!

    Nuclear explosions, by their very nature, are as instantaneous as you can get … because it’s a runaway positive feedback mechanism which permits it to happen in the first place. Whether old fashioned or “modern” suitcase “dial a power” device … the blast mechanism still has to be exactly the same. The runaway reaction has to be contained for a (very, very short) period of time in order to grow itself. When it manages to escape the compression confines of its container … the reaction stops … because the expansion drives the core of the bomb far enough apart that neutrons no longer manage to hit the nucleus of adjacent atoms. So the strength or “yield” of the bomb is determined by how long the reaction was managed to be held close together in a compressed bubble.

    The towers “collapsed” at approximately the speed of gravitational acceleration … around 9.7 seconds I believe. Debris and material were virtually boiling out of these “collapses” and growing in size all the while.

    There’s no way to keep a nuclear explosion going that long! So how could a nuclear explosion be responsible?

    Now for some statements and comments or questions …

    The use of chemical explosives for conventional demolition, regularly spaced at structural nodes of the buildings, was never a satisfactory explanation because of the absence of significant boom noise.

    Remember the firemen who happened to get trapped in a stair well and survived the north tower collapsing on top of them? They were between floors 1 and 4. They described the sound of the collapsing they heard overhead as “bamb, bamb, bamb, bamb” (like a slow machine gun) as they explained what they perceived to be … every successive floor falling off of its external anchors.

    They definitely heard explosions. Many firemen reported hearing explosions.

    Now, if you think that a nuclear blast underground is muffled by the ground … why wouldn’t blasts inside of floors be muffled by the concrete of the floors (and walls around them too)?

    We don’t hear any significant sonic boom in the videos, nor do we see a significant visual manifestation (flame, fireball) of chemical explosives going off when the Towers collapse. So it wasn’t chemical explosives, and definitely not aerial “mini-nukes” neither, whose fireballs are impossible to miss.

    If you don’t see the flash of an underground nuclear explosion, why would you necessarily see the flash of an explosion buried in a concrete floor? I mean, a ‘conflagration explosion’ goes on for a certain amount of time because heat is carried from molecule to molecule in order to keep the ignition going … and this kind of “explosion” would be visible as the concrete breaks open.

    However, an “all-at-once” detonation explosion is over almost as soon as it starts and wouldn’t show any flash upon the concrete’s breaking open.

    Only nuclears were compact enough to fit underneath the three WTC buildings that came down and while still releasing over 1 peta Joules of thermal energy to the atmosphere.

    Ok, maybe … but what if NO device was fit underneath the WTC towers?

    Are you suggesting that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to destroy any single floor of the WTC towers with conventional explosives added to the melting away of heavy steel supporting structure with thermite?

    I mean, if it WAS possible to destroy a single floor without the use of a nuke, using only conventional means … then why wouldn’t it be possible to destroy all the floors by the same method on each floor?

    Or are you thinking that it would be impossible to put ENOUGH conventional explosives and thermite in those buildings without anyone finding out about it as it was being done?

    If you think it was impossible to rig those structures for total destruction using conventional means because it would be too obvious … I ask you to reconsider ((my)) theory: floors were loaded with explosives by using the utility rooms to access the floors’ ductwork. This was done at night to lessen the chances of discovery.

    The core columns were loaded internally with thermite to melt them and weaken them … and also, perhaps to cut them into suitable lengths for later salvaging. Access to these columns was from the hat truss area at the very top of the structures where no one but maintenance workers were allowed to be.

    Sound reasonable? Loads of thermite and explosives … with no witnesses to see them being put into place.

  82. Garliv says:
    @Iris

    There were active participants to the conspiracy on the ground, some filming, others testifying to having seen the planes with their own eyes.

    I find your analysis of 9/11 fraud profoundly insightful. And explains a lot. As for several active “participants”, has there been anyone who got tired of deceit and revealed their role?
    Then as for deaths and survivors some of us have been wondering what happened to the American litigation culture? Definitely there would be several lawsuits (maybe thousands) emanating from 9/11 incident but very strange there doesn’t seem anything of the sort. Just curious.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @Iris
  83. @Alberta Vince

    I too was going to leave it alone, but yours is the best rebuttal to the nuclear idea I’ve read. You hit all the major points and used logic for your statements.

    Those claiming that the radiation from a nuclear device would be captured below ground so as to not leave an easily detectable nuclear signature above are ignoring that the underground test ranges were ‘hot’ after the blasts with warning signs posted. Without noticeable radiation above ground and a largely intact bathtub below ground, the nuclear angle doesn’t seem credible.

    As far as calculating how much energy was involved, that’s just guess work due to too many variables. They should have gotten a ‘climate scientist’ to create a model.

    • Replies: @Iris
  84. @Alberta Vince

    Good post. You mention 2 things in your post that shows that it is not possible to be thermite and explosives alone, the “Spire” and the Miracle at Stairwell B.

    I would bet that you’ve seen the videos of the continued disintegration of The Spire. If not, there is a video linked below. If only explosives or Thermite were used, how and why does this 700 foot structure turn to dust after the load was removed? The structural steel was still standing. It should be standing today.

    The same is true for the Miracle at Stairwell B. There were 220 concrete and steel staircases that “fell” directly in the heads of the firemen in Stairwell B. And yet they all survived without a scratch. How is that possible with explosives and thermite?

    Notice the 1 firefighter describes being “blown down” 6 stories. But the staircases were bifold structures. How do you get blown down a zig zag staircase?

    This also applies to Iris’ theories about nukes. It’s not possible for nukes to be used in the manner she claims. I think they likely were used in some form, just as explosives and thermite were used. But NONE of these alone explain everything.

    There was something else going on that is very mysterious and unexplained.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  85. @Garliv

    They could have brought in loads of IDF to act out whatever they wanted while they filmed their show. They’d never tell.

    • Agree: Iris
  86. profnasty says:

    Kind of like a dog chasing it’s tail. We know the demo was planned. We even know by (whom). Let’s go over the list. Name names. Risk lawsuits. That young fella, who’s name now forgotten, told US who did it. Jewish lightening all the way.
    To argue over the exact method seems counter-productive. Lucky Larry is Laughing. The 50 Years War continues apace.

  87. @Genrick Yagoda

    Yes, you ask some “tough” questions all right!~

    The best I can offer is a Judy Wood’s “dustification beam” … which no one in reality has ever realized and exists -to this day, nearly 20 years later- only in imagination. So I think it’s safe to reject a phase-changing ray gun theory … unless and until someone can actually produce one.

    The best I can offer is that what we see in that video of the “spire” disappearing … is partly an optical illusion created by obscuring smoke or smoke and haze.

    Here’s what I think (for now) … happened.

    Thermite was placed INSIDE of the vertical hollow columns of the towers. It was possibly lowered down with dividing tampons so that the internal melting heat would occur at strategic intervals to “cut through” the metal and cause the remaining collapsing steel to buckle up into fixed lengths for easier later removal.

    There was a video I watched, back in the day … showing quite clearly through the smoke and dust of the collapsing structure … steel columns FALLING like trees. It was only visible for a moment or two but it was very easy to make out. I can’t find that video any more or I’d present it here. Well … such hefty columns simply can’t fall like trees unless they’re CUT!

    There were also pictures of steel columns from WTC 7 which showed weeping holes in the steel, coming from the INSIDE of those columns … which confirmed to me that melting happened on the INSIDE of the columns and not externally (except, perhaps, in the angular cut stumps which were found way down in the rubble). Such melting would, of course, be possible to do with thermite since thermite doesn’t rely on air to keep itself burning.

    All right, with that in mind … how did the firemen get blown down 6 floors? Well I understand that to mean that they weren’t bodily blown down but that the structure on which they stood … dropped 6 floors. Now HOW he would have been able to count floors as he was going down is beyond me since he wouldn’t have had any elevator lights to tell him the numbers but … firemen have “mysterious ways” to tell stuff I suppose?

    Things apparently didn’t go quite as planned in the north tower and it was even worse with Building 7 it seems. The further north they went, the worse it got!~ The north tower, if you recall was initiated first but remained standing almost twice as long as the south tower.

    I think that the cutting charges or thermite burns didn’t quite achieve what they were supposed to in the north tower and sections remained uncut … including the part that saved the firemen and other survivors.

    The same problem (I believe) accounts for that remaining section of core columns outlasting the collapse by several seconds.

    Those columns, I think … were severely burned and weakened internally but still just strong enough to remain standing … UNTIL a further burning down below caused them to “sink” out of sight.

    The burning of thermite internally had already stopped above ground level because the thermite had either burned itself out or had fallen away inside of the columns down lower and deeper into the rubble. Whatever the case, these columns had survived everything fallen around them and they still weakly stood in place but the fire was “out” inside of the visible sections (or we would have seen the bright light. Thermite burns very brightly).

    However, once they were severed down underneath by continued burning of thermite, they “shuddered” and then fell. The vibration of them losing their footing, loosened dust inside of the columns which then emanated out out of burn holes … creating the illusion of steel being transmuted into dust.

    That’s the best explanation I can offer at this time.

  88. Iris says:
    @RoatanBill

    As far as calculating how much energy was involved, that’s just guess work due to too many variables. They should have gotten a ‘climate scientist’ to create a model.

    I am pinching myself hard reading this. Has the Western mind been dumbed down to the extent that people are now unable to grasp the basic numerical concepts of “inferior to” and “superior to“?

    My 6-years old relative gets it right every time, and he is only in First grade.

    I will repeat the explanation in an extremely simplified way so “everybody” can understand.

    There were 4 modes of heat transfer at play at the WTC just after the 9/11 underground nuclear detonations: radiation, conduction, forced convection (the jets of water poured by the firemen) and free convection.

    Professor Roby calculated only the heat released by free convection, using the universal equation of exponential thermal decay that has been known and utilised for over 3 centuries.
    The astronomical result obtained (1 peta Joules) is a in the order of magnitude of the monthly production of a 900 MW nuclear reactor. No chemical explosive can produce that.

    As this result is only a low estimate, neglecting all 3 other modes of heat transfer, it means that the heat released by the WTC was actually far superior to 1 peta Joules.

    Ergo, the form of energy involved in the destruction of the WTC was mandatorily of nuclear nature.

    The concept of “low estimate” not being understood anymore shows that there is no limit, neither to human stupidity, nor to Hasbara trolls’ desperation.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  89. The best I can offer is a Judy Wood’s “dustification beam” … which no one in reality has ever realized and exists -to this day, nearly 20 years later- only in imagination. So I think it’s safe to reject a phase-changing ray gun theory … unless and until someone can actually produce one.

    That’s not really an accurate summation of her position, but I will agree that it’s hard to know what happened, since it never has before or since.

    But there are numerous videos showing steel beams and massive steel structures melting in mid-air. And most compellingly, these structures never hit the ground. So clearly and obviously something caused them to disintegrate after the explosions which propelled them outward.

    These type of videos are not limited to the Youtube crowd. A&E911Truth also has videos showing steel beams disintegrating in mid-air, and they are a fairly conservative bunch.

    LIDAR images taken 4 days after the event shows that both towers disintegrated almost to ground level. These images are housed at the Library of Congress, so that is a big fat admission against interest. Notice that all the falling steel didn’t even make a dent in the dome of the building right beside and underneath one of the towers. How is this possible?

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-maps.html

    And as I mentioned in one of my posts above, all of the internal elements of the building alos vaporized. The electrical & water substations, the hundreds of miles of HVAC and electrical wiring, the doors, the elevators, the filing cabinets, the desks, the carpets, etc…

    As to whether or not Judy Wood is right, she is to be commended for the evidence she has gathered.

    But whatever happened, it was something very mysterious, unknown, and protected by those who really control things. It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that no one has come forward with how it works and what is was.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  90. @Iris

    Have you personally done the calculation with the requisite education or are you taking someone’s word for it?

    The two towers and all the other damage done that day scattered over a huge area represent enough material and a situation over time that is best described as a chaotic system with an unknown number of variables. Concentrating on one aspect reminds me of the fraud being perpetrated by the climate science crowd, another system so chaotic that any knowledge about that system is in its infancy.

    I’ve seen the word Hasbara before on this site and from the context it was used in deduced it’s an Israeli supporter. Given your ad hominem, I looked it up and got it’s actual definition. I completely fail to see how being skeptical of the theory you champion has anything to do with Israel, pro or con. BTW – If you check my posting history, I’ve often asserted that Israel has no right to exist because it’s in receipt of stolen property; the land it occupies.

    If someone disagrees with you on a scientific matter, especially when numerous educated people have looked into the issue and there is no smoking gun proof of what happened, that means we are all expressing an opinion until such time that actual scientific proof is confirmed. I seriously doubt that will ever happen because there’s been too much propaganda and false information planted to muddy any investigation and TPTsB have destroyed much of the evidence.

    Hint – Your use of an ad hominem in no way strengthens your argument.

    • Replies: @Iris
  91. Tom67 says:

    Renovating my house in Germany. Want to convert lowest of three floors into rental. House was built in 1973. If you want to lawfully convert you have to follow the newest building code which is from 1989. That means stricter rules on sound and fire proofing. Sound proofing difficult but fire proofing impossible. Had an expert over who explained that from 1989 the steel beams supporting the ceiling must be coated in heat insulation to give inhabitants more time to escape before house collapses. Sure I can´t rip out everything to lay bare the beams and then coat them. Might as well built a new house. But why the regulation I asked the expert.
    Steel beams will buckle under the heat and collapse he explained. I am serious and this is a major problem for me.
    Now I suppose that pressure from above was not what the WTC was designed against. Hurricanes sure and maybe earthquakes. But the incredible heat of kerosene collapsing supporting beams? Most likely not.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  92. Iris says:
    @Alberta Vince

    First of all the question: why were the twin towers brought down from the top to bottom when building 7 was demolished in the conventional manner?

    No. All 3 buildings were brought down by the same method and by 3 respective, dedicated nuclear charge of the same yield.

    The destructive pressure shockwave subsequent to the detonation propagates in space with a magnitude that decreases as a reverse function of the square of the distance r to the explosion chamber (1/r^2).

    WTC7 was much shorter, so it was entirely disintegrated; the Twin Towers were significantly taller, so the top upper floors did not disintegrate as full as the lower ones.

    The difference in the way WTC7 collapsed, on the contrary, further confirms the underground nuclear detonation hypothesis.
    Please read Section 4.2.2 in Pr Roby’s WTC study:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331650855_What_is_basic_physics_worth_Orders_of_magnitude_energy_and_overconfidence_in_technical_refinements

    So in view of the fact that this bathtub exists and that care needed to be taken in order to preserve its integrity … just how would a planted subterranean nuclear bomb fit in with it?

    Very easy. Being given their extreme height and comparatively narrow footprint, the Twin Towers required deep rock foundations.

    Their support piles were inserted into boreholes dug up into the bedrock, which was underneath the Bath Tub’s floor level. It would have been extremely easy to dig up one extra deeper borehole, in addition to the dozens prepared to receive the piles, and to keep it secret as provision for future demolition. Even the construction personnel would not have understood its significance at the time, given the the scale of the overall WTC construction project.

    To make an analogy with the Petronas Towers’ structure picture below, the mat is equivalent to the Bath Tub floor (lower than street level), and the “barrettes” underneath are equivalent to the Twin Towers structural piles, inserted into the bedrock.

    Nuclear bombs have a shelf life too and have to be checked, serviced and then recycled too … every so many years …

    Yes, and both for maintenance and security reasons, the WTC nuclear charges were all stored under WTC7, a governmental building with restricted access.
    The nuclear charges were designed to be delivered by dedicated rail-tracks, running through tunnels, the standard delivery method for land-based nuclear weapons, as it avoids dangerous shocks and vibrations.

    This delivery method explains the anomaly that nobody has cared to explained: Why were the Twin Towers demolished in the wrong order? The South Tower collapsed first, although hit second.

    The reason is because the North Tower was closer to the delivery centre at WTC7. If the North Tower had been demolished first, this would have damaged the delivery tunnel to the South Tower and prevented its demolition.

    , why would you necessarily see the flash of an explosion buried in a concrete floor?

    Because it wasn’t in the concrete floor. It was in a borehole dug into the bedrock, at approximately 80 metres underneath the Bath Tub’s concrete floor (approximately 100 metres below street level).

    I mean, if it WAS possible to destroy a single floor without the use of a nuke, using only conventional means … then why wouldn’t it be possible to destroy all the floors by the same method on each floor?

    Because it is impossible for a aerial “nuke”, even so-called “mininukes”, to explode above floor level without producing a glaringly visible fireball and a significantly loud sonic boom . We don’t see, neither hear any in the WTC videos.

    The same reasoning applies to chemical explosives such as thermite: they can’t explode without producing a supersonic shockwave and associated sonic boom.

  93. Anon[258] • Disclaimer says:

    The Truth will set us all free…

    Truth. What the Jews Hate.

    Truth. Like… Why the Jews killed JFK, RFK, and JFK Jr.?

    Truth. Like… How the Jews did 9/11.

    Truth. Like… the Hoax of the 20th Century.

    Truth. Like… all the ugly secrets of the Federal Reserve.

    Truth. Like… Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal, and how they stole it.

    It’s time that Truth was revealed.

    All of it.

  94. Iris says:
    @E_Perez

    How can they all keep silence? Not even a single anonymous whistleblower?

    It is because 9/11 was almost 100% an Israeli job, in which Americans were mostly used as pawns and were made to unwittingly and unwillingly participate in the assassination of 3,000 countrymen.

    When the Twin Towers, but also the Sears Tower in Chicago were designed, a novel demolition method had to be proposed as part of the planning application. Because it was the crazy, optimistic mid-60’s, an underground nuclear demolition method was devised and accepted.

    All three buildings had nuclear charges allocated to them and stored in situ, which existence was communicated and known to the USSR within the scope of signed non-proliferation nuclear agreements.

    After the first WTC 1993 attack, the services in charge reviewed the terrorism-related security procedures at the WTC. But instead of getting rid of the stored nuclear weapons altogether, somebody came up with the twisted idea that, should the WTC be attacked again, with nuclear explosives this time, it would be safer to detonate the underground charges in order to protect New-York from a far more devastating aerial nuclear explosion. A mandatory emergency procedure was implemented to that effect,

    By the coming of the Millennium, the Twin Towers were condemned anyway because of their hazardous asbestos content.

    Some war hawks and NeoCons decided to use the opportunity to launch a new “War on Terror” to replace the defunct “Cold War”. Equally important, Israel was in a dire situation, struggling with a persistent “Intifada” that exposed its abject treatment of the Palestinians. The Zionist state badly needed to turn over global public opinion in its favour and against Arabs and Muslims.
    All these objectives converged to create the “New Pearl Harbour”.

    There probably was an initial conspiracy involving non-Israeli American war hawks, with the objective of bombing the Pentagon, and possibly not even involving the WTC at all.
    The conspirators were however double-crossed by the Israeli component within them, who had grander plans.

    To kick-start the false-flag, the explosives, likely nanothermite, pre-planted by the Israeli Art Students, was exploded successively atop the Twin Towers, and was presented as a plane attack by the media.

    Just afterwards, a missile was launched towards the Pentagon and from the limits of US territorial waters. The missile was so close that it could not have been stopped by air defences, who were not part of the conspiracy.
    The vessel which launched it unhindered was so near that it could only have belonged to a “best friend of the USA”; it was probably an Israeli Dolphin submarine.

    When the cruise missile hit and pierced 3 rings of the Pentagon, the responders on the ground realised that it was a Soviet Granit missile with an unexploded nuclear head. The head had been deliberately disabled, but they did not know that; they consequently triggered the nuclear attack alarm response.

    At the same time, Mossad started deceiving US regular intelligence services with deliberately faked information. They informed that the top of the Twin Towers were “also” planted with nuclear explosives, either pre-planted or brought aboard the “planes”.

    Nuclear emergency situations are normally dealt with by the very competent and experienced NEST (Nuclear Emergency Support Team). In preparation for 9/11, the entire NEST team was deliberately sent to Europe. Had they been present, they would have most likely avoided the WTC catastrophe.

    So in absence of NEST, non-specialist security officers had to make a decision.
    Bombarded with Mossad’s fake intelligence, and blinded by the Pentagon nuclear head deception, they triggered the fatal mandatory procedure of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, without fully understanding, neither the real context, nor the implications.

    The security officers who ordered the demolition only followed an ill-devised procedure.
    The US Air Force and air traffic controls were not part of the conspiracy, since no planes were involved they could have been stopped.
    The Navy could have done nothing either, since the launching vessel most likely belonged to “best friend and ally” Israel.
    The CIA, for all its might, seems to have played no significant role whatsoever: all three decisive actions of the false flag: bombing of the Twin Towers, bombing of the Pentagon and demolition of WTC7 was carried out by Israelis.

    This is how the Israelis double-crossed, tricked and trapped the Americans.
    By compromising a few in a small-scale conspiracy, and then leveraging the situation to implicate American state institutions that were never part of it, they transformed an Israeli crime into an American state secret.

  95. @Tom67

    But the incredible heat of kerosene collapsing supporting beams?

    As I explained earlier in the thread, you should be afraid to go camping. Because the incredible heat from the kerosene in my camping stove will not only turn my steel pot into dust, it will cause a building 700 yards away to commit suicide.

    Good guess, otherwise.

    BTW, when jets crash in real life there are no kerosene fires. The kerosene fuel disappears in a giant burst of flame, and is burned off in a second. The fuel doesn’t sit there and burn, it flashes off so quickly it can’t even catch the wooden telephone pole right beside the crash shown in this video.

    I know, I was there. I watched the blast wave come toward me and felt the heat.

  96. Iris says:
    @RoatanBill

    Have you personally done the calculation with the requisite education

    Yes, I have, and yes I have the adequate credentials.
    For your information, the calculation is actually so simple that it can be understood and replicated by any decent undergraduate Physics student at 3rd year University level. So there are millions of us worldwide who will eventually understand that 9/11 was a nuclear Holocaust of innocent Americans.

    The idea is so brilliantly simple that one catches it immediately. Even if Pr Roby, bless him, gets silenced for some reason, any Physics-trained individual who read his work can reproduce the same calculation, with the same results and leading to the same conclusion, in just minutes with a simple spreadsheet.

    The article has been out for two years, and although Pr Roby was disciplined and lost his job for “Anti-Semitism”, nobody was able to find the smallest error in his proof.

    Pr Roby has called on dissident thinker Jean Bricmont, an emeritus Physics professor and distinguished member of the Belgian Academy of Science, to challenge his work. Bricmont has kept silent, which is as good an acquiescence as one can get within Zionist-occupied Europe.
    https://aitia.fr/erd/lettre-ouverte-a-jean-bricmont/

    The Genie of 9/11 Truth is out of the bottle, and will never be silenced again. Instead, it will be sheltered and nurtured by millions of Physics and Engineering professionals throughout the world, until it becomes mainstream History. You think that the Iraqis and Afghans massacred for the glory of Zion will forgive and forget?

    9/11 has been terminally debunked by the universal laws of Physics; it is only poetic justice after all.
    Its day of reckoning is inevitable, a day on which Israel’s pervert crimes will be openly revealed for all nations to see. Most are all already vomiting at your depravity behind your back anyway.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  97. @Genrick Yagoda

    Well ok, I don’t want to be cavalier about this and yes, I admit … Judy DID stick her neck out as a sacrificial lamb (shall we say).

    At the same time, I can’t claim that it’s all clear as crystal in my own mind either. I mean … the
    smoke-emitting walls and other smoke jettisoning stuff falling out of that monstrous cloud might have been thermite smoke (which DOES emit white aluminum oxide as a smoke) … but, on the other hand … there ought ALSO to have been some visible fire still showing somewhere as well. I have no idea, honestly … why we saw all smoke and no fire.

    (Ah, this “forum” leaves a bit to be desired. I started to edit it and it flipped on me. The preview button doesn’t work either)…

    I forgot to add that the “round domed” building “next to” a tower was actually ACROSS a 4 lane street from the WTC complex. There were several of these domed buildings so I don’t know which one you’re referring to.

    There’s a massively large overhead picture which can be accessed at
    which is best explored if you download it to your computer first and then look at in a photo editor browser. A normal web browser doesn’t permit zooming out enough to get a proper reference to distance and size.

    For a smaller version, go here first …

    Clicking on this one will bring up the monstrous file (of nearly 300 megabytes).

    Also note that the photo is rotated 90 degrees right so that West is at the top of the photo instead of at the left side.

    When you zoom in deep enough, you’ll see plenty of WTC debris on the roofs of 2 of those domed buildings. The worst hit, I suppose, is the one with the cross walk half blown away in front of it.

  98. @Iris

    I’m afraid that you’re too-glued to your nuke theory to “hear” anything else. I was hoping you’d be more reasonable but your approach is very similar to other nuke advocates with whom I”ve communicated and that it …

    It’s not your way BECAUSE it has to be MY way.

    That’s not a response or even discussion; it’s much like a parent telling her kid when the kid asks “why”?

    “Because I SAID so … that’s why!”

  99. Iris says:
    @Garliv

    As for several active “participants”, has there been anyone who got tired of deceit and revealed their role?

    The key participants were mostly Israelis; they are the only ones who know the significant details of the 9/11 machination, since they did it.

    America is just cannon fodder to them; they will never speak up.
    Furthermore, they have deceived and trapped American institutions in a way to force even perfectly decent Americans into participating in the cover-up. See my comment at 94.

    A few most interesting deductions, however, were made and communicated off-the-records by courageous individuals within the FBI. Thanks to them, one can understand how and why the nuclear demolition scheme was activated.

  100. @Iris

    You are a disgusting piece of work for doubling down on what I already told you is a lie you manufactured out of nothing about me.

  101. @Henry's Cat

    That isn’t what I see at all, Cat. Maybe you only see what you’re looking for. There’s still some discussion of it here on threads where it isn’t even the initial topic. “911 truth” as a subject of discussion isn’t going away anytime soon, IMO.

  102. RodW says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    One of Pommer’s several proofs of the nuclear element is the flickering of cameras that coincided with seismic events. Are chemical explosions known to disrupt electronics? I’m not aware that they are. And the cameras flickered not only during the destructive events, but for weeks afterwards at the site when they were recording the cleanup.

    Iris, regarding your observation about everything shown being real apart from the planes, I tend to agree. But have you looked into the other things flying about in many of the videos — the ‘birds’ with four wings and no wings, that fly about at phenomenal speeds? They look as if they were added for some reason which isn’t immediately obvious.

  103. sunergras says:

    There had been a post or two that referred to those who supposedly jumped, which though topic more general, goes to same discussion, false versus reality.
    It’s been said and have come to agree no one was in the buidlings when they were demolished. Suggest if people look again the jumpers were edited in, which as to the general population, it’s something more haven’t considered the easy con of visual manipulating, paste jobs, given number of people the last decade or more futzing with photos or otherwise photo editing, or going to movies, to not assume those who control every teevee etc haven’t been doing the same on hyper level, such as on the jumpers, which were actually amateur level. I could do the jumpers in about twenty minutes using old windows paint, not even photoshop, using newer photo editor about five minutes.

    Having said that, in no way does it diminish what’s gone on, the people who’ve died because of the con, by those who pushed wars, and also new yorkers and firemen who died or are dying from breathing the absetos and other deterious from the nine-eleven con.

    `

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @bayviking
    , @Iris
  104. bayviking says:

    Whether 0.1% residual thermite is consistent with what should be expected in the dust following the demolition of a building I do not know. I do know thermite explosives are used to provide reliable grounding of skyscrapers and industrial facilities. Building 7 is another story altogether, since nothing hit it and heating one side could not possibly cause an even collapse of all four sides simultaneously..

    Whether the conspiracy theorists are correct or not about 9-11 we all know by now that our Government will conspire to hide the truth from us, allegedly for our own good, but mostly to protect the careers of important, but incompetent, leaders, like J Edgar Hoover or Richard Helms, who successfully created lone assassin crimes where conspiracies existed.

  105. @Genrick Yagoda

    You received your post-grad Physics degree or Engineering degree from where?

    I’m just a humble former Aerospace Engineer, but I get his points, and I find his hypothesis is plausible. A lot more plausible than the prospect of someone secretly wiring the Towers for controlled demolition without any of roughly 50k people working in the complex noticing strange works, even after hours.

    Do you have a tree next to your house, ideally growing over your house or driveway? Go cut it down and see which way the centre of mass falls.

  106. @Iris

    And yet, no EMP. Even if the amplitude of the EMP from an underground blast was relatively low, you’d still expect to see reports of fried electronics in the immediate vicinity.

  107. @Kevin Barrett

    The absurdity of the official story is not a bug – it’s a feature.

    The macro-purpose of it is to broadcast policy to the administrative superstructure of the global control structure – both public (government) and private (corporate).

    Regardless of whether I am on the public-side or the private-side, when I saw the event referred to as the collapse of Building 7, it was just what it appeared to be – a simple controlled demolition of a building.

    But the instant I heard the official story, I knew that it was an announcement of policy.

    The official story has to be batsh*t-crazy – or it won’t work.

    Look to the legal-profession where it has been developed into an art-form. It is the reason why the more objectively-irrational and flat-out-stupid a decision of a multi-judge court-of appeal – the more likely it is to be unanimous.

    But it is a brilliantly diabolical tactic, because it results in all the still-sane-people wasting vast amounts of time and energy trying to persuade their family, friends and neighbours that two-plus-two make four.

  108. @The Alarmist

    So Mr. Aerospace engineer, you think that when a large amount of building twists free of the rest of the structure, tilts 22 degrees and rotates that instead of falling off the rest of the building it magically crushes downward evenly on this structure when there is ZERO mass on one side? And in spite of ZERO mass on one side, and with graduated mass in the building as the structure is closer to the ground, you believe that the building, and everything inside the building disintegrates?

    And who said anything about wiring the building for controlled demolition? Not me.

    And when I cut down this tree, will the tree crush itself into nothing?

    When I cut down this tree, will the tree disintegrate in mid-air, as much of the material from the towers did?

    You are either an obnoxious blowhard or you are the most dangerous engineer in the world.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  109. @The Alarmist

    I waited too long to edit my comment, so I’ll add this here. The unbridled idiocy of a poster trying to tell me about “center of mass” when he appears to be unable to understand which direction a building that is tilting over 22 degrees is going to fall is unbelievable.

    Please, Mr. Aerospace engineer, the floor is yours. When a large mass of some number of tons is tilted 22 degrees, does it fall

    A) the direction in which the mass is tilting?

    or

    B) In spite of this thing called gravity ( which I presume you have heard about) the tilting mass rights itself so it can sit straight up and crush a larger mass of graduated structural steel into its own footprint, while simultaneously crushing into fine dust everything inside the building, including 8 x 35,000 transformers?

    Aerospace engineer my eye. As Looney Tunes would have said, You are a just a loud-mouthed Schnook.

  110. @Genrick Yagoda

    I’d say your comment that one side of the structure has no mass is sufficient to demonstrate which one of us is clueless.

    BTW, gravity pulls the centre of mass of an object straight down toward the centre of the Earth. That’s how gravity works. An object will only fall away to the side if the resistance of the remaining structure below is sufficient to overcome the force of gravity pulling the moving mass straight down. The structure of the Towers was strong enough to support the mass above on a normal day, but not to stop it from pancaking once the mass of twenty floors started dropping straight down.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  111. bayviking says:
    @sunergras

    The first instruction from the local Government was “stay in the building” it cannot collapse. By the time most occupants decided they better get out the stairs was their only option. For some trapped behind the fire, jumping probably seemed a less painful way to go. Government conspiracy, highly likely. No one actually jumped? GMAFB

  112. JWalters says:
    @Iris

    Thank you for your excellent contributions to this discussion. I appreciate your solid base of knowledge, high quality of analysis, and civilized manner.

    In addition to the physical evidence, there is the fact that the official 9/11 report gave NO accounnt of Building 7’s collapse, and in fact, did not even MENTION that Building 7 collapsed! This omission could not have been an oversight (e.g. Kean and Hamilton slapping their foreheads), so it must have been intentional. This is like a crime scene with three bodies, and the official report completely omits one body. The eventual report on Building 7 (years later) claimed there was no evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitnesses testifying to hearing explosions just before the collapse, some of which are available on the internet!
    War Profiteers and 9/11
    http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-911.html

    I too don’t see how Denis Rancourt can stick to the planes theory when it requires an aluminum airplane wing slicing through ten closely spaced girders of high-strength steel like those girders were butter. I appreciate solid scientific skepticism, but he repeatedly seems intent on dodging evidence (and implications) with his “Who knows?” argument. His appeal to his credentials and “trust me”, coupled with a personal attack on his opponent, was especially cheap, it seemed to me. It reminds me of the well-credentialed tobacco company scientists and oil company scientists. He accepts that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, but works hard to deny that possibility for the twin towers. It all makes me wonder if he is carefully crafted “controlled opposition”. I don’t know, but he did not inspire my trust.

    • Thanks: Iris
  113. JWalters says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    I agree with your strategy. It is both honest and effective. It contributes to your credibility. Shutting down voices is the road to tyranny.

    Denis says IF the tower collapsed in a gravitational free fall it would hit with the kinetic energy equivalent to 100 tons of TNT. That sounds impressive. But that’s not what happened.

  114. JWalters says:
    @Mulegino1

    Thanks for your excellent points about airliner fragility. They destroy the claim that an aluminum wing sliced through 10 closely spaced, high-strength steel girders as if they were butter girders.

    • Thanks: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  115. anon[429] • Disclaimer says:

    Settled:

    I have built a mini scraper from Hershey bars.

    Not quite steel but the heat was a warm day.

    This mini scraper softened, tilted, fell over.

    QED

  116. @The Alarmist

    Absolutely incredible. You want people to believe that a multi-ton structure with sideways and tipping motion will crush the side that it has tipped away from, because of “center of mass”??

    So ZERO building can crush a real building straight down, because of “pancaking”???

    Are you for real? If there is no building above one side, how does it pancake? You are mindboggling daft.

    And I wrote that since the top of the building had tilted, the was ZERO mass on the opposite to crush anything. Learn to read. And try some building blocks while you are at it

  117. There is ZERO mass pancaking anything on at least 1 part, and little mass on several other parts.

    Anyone who thinks that ZERO mass can cause a graduated structure to “pancake” is the most dangerous engineer in the world.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  118. @Genrick Yagoda

    The load was shared between the exterior columns, in addition to with the centre columns. Once the centre columns and one or more side columns were taken out, there was no way the columns on the othe side were going to stand, and they would fall down pretty much straight to earth. Their mass would contribute to the pancaking of the floors below.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  119. @Mulegino1

    They were 767s, they could easily do 500 mph, and hitting a target is simply a matter of keeping it on the same point on the windscreen. An airframe at that speed would be sufficiently rigid to slice through the exterior columns, and the fuel and what remained of the contents of the aircraft would have continued on into the building while it was still igniting.

    • LOL: Iris, Genrick Yagoda
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @E_Perez
    , @RodW
  120. @The Alarmist

    Cool story, Bro. Could use a werewolf, though.

    You know, the same thing is true for trees. Once the tall pointing part starts to fall because of wind, there is no way the rest of the tree can remain standing, and the mass of the small part makes the larger, thicker part pancake straight down to the earth.

    Good god, an “engineer”…………

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  121. Iris says:

    To cleanse one’s mind from the crackpottery of cartoon Physics promoted by NIST in general and the Hasbara trolls on the UR discussion threads in particular, it is important to remember that large civil engineering structures are always over-engineered many times over.

    Typically, the design for a major civil engineering work will account for 5 times its static load: the construction will be able to bear without damage as much as 5 times the maximum weight it can ever be realistically burden with in the real life.

    Similarly, it will be designed to sustain up to 3 times its maximum dynamic load. The dynamic load is generally exerted by the environment. The designers will first take into account the worst case dynamic load scenario: strongest possible wind, earthquake and/or hurricane. They will then design the structure so it can bear without damage as much as 3 times the worst case scenario.

    Here is how Frank A. DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Centre, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
    DeMartini, whose office was in the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11.

    The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door — this intense grid — and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

  122. @Genrick Yagoda

    Classic four A’s of a gamma.

    Keep on keepin’ on, bro.

  123. Denis Rancourt is grotesquely unempirical and humiliates himself countless times during the interview. Rancourt is either a trained physicist who cannot see that his theories blatantly violate Newton´s laws, or he is simply a victim of his own lack of intelligence and psychological shortcomings.

  124. Mulegino1 says:
    @The Alarmist

    The commercial Boeing 767’s could not reach 500+ mph air speed at such a low altitude, because of the air density and the engines’ ability to generate sufficient thrust.

    In addition, an amateur pilot whose flight experience has been confined to a single engine Cessna, is not going to be able to pull off such a maneuver. The example given by Pilots for 9/11 Truth- that it would be the equivalent of expecting a driver used only to normal sized automobiles to drive a semi-truck through a Jiffy Lube at 100 mph- is unanswerable (unless you believe that the “hijackers” had the assistance of miracle working jinn). Even professional airline pilots with time in type were barely able to duplicate the feat in a professional simulator, and then only after numerous attempts.

    The airframe of a 767 at that speed would certainly not be as rigid as the massive structural steel perimeter columns and concrete floor pans of WTC 1 and 2. The aircraft would have mostly turned to aluminum confetti upon impact with the exterior.

    • Agree: Genrick Yagoda
    • Thanks: Iris
  125. Iris says:
    @sunergras

    There had been a post or two that referred to those who supposedly jumped, which though topic more general, goes to same discussion, false versus reality.

    Although I am of the opposite opinion regarding people jumping from the Twin Towers, I certainly understand your logic and suspicion: since 9/11 was deliberately designed as a psychological terror operation, nothing would have been spared to stir fear within the American public.

    It is great that you brought up this very important subject, which is often mentioned by UR commenter Rurik, bless him: was 9/11 deliberately designed to cause the maximum possible number of victims at the WTC?

    Rurik highlights how people fleeing both Towers after the first bombing were sent back inside the buildings, in a way that caused much many more deaths than if they’d been let to flee as instructed by their survival instinct:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/nyregion/9-11-tape-has-late-change-on-evacuation.html

    Although this ill-fated action was officially blamed on evacuation procedures poorly adapted to the extraordinary situation, several other facts of 9/11 show that he is correct.

    Fact 1: The insiders and officials in charge with the controlled demolition pretended that the South Tower was about to collapse due to raging fires, while the firemen working inside the Tower knew it wasn’t. The former triggered the demolition scheme without warning the latter to evacuate, hence deliberately provoking much more deaths than would have been the case otherwise.

    The exact account of events shortly before the WTC South Tower’s collapse can be found in the City of New York records:

    “…In the lobby of building 7 of the WTC, EMS Division Chief John Peruggia is in discussion with Fire Department Captain Richard Rotanz and a representative from the Department of Buildings. As Peruggia later describes, “It was brought to my attention it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the [Twin] Towers was quite significant and they [?? who ??] were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the North Tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.”

    Peruggia grabs EMT Richard Zarrillo and tells him to pass on the message “that the buildings have been compromised, we need to evacuate, they’re going to collapse.” Zarrillo heads out to the fire command post, situated in front of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building, where he relays this message to several senior firefighters.
    He says, “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.” (OEM is the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, which has its headquarters in WTC-7.) Fire Chief Pete Ganci’s response is, “who the f___ told you that?” Seconds later, they hear the noise of the South Tower as it collapses…”

    Fire Chief P. Ganci was killed straight afterwards by the falling debris.

    It is evident from this discussion that the firemen actually on the ground performing the rescue operations did not see any “office fire” compromising the building to the extent they feared it would collapse.

    It is also evident that the insiders who triggered the nuclear demolition scheme remotely from WTC Building 7 did not inform , or too late and too confusedly, the first responders, sacrifying them in an avoidable death.

  126. E_Perez says:
    @The Alarmist

    … hitting a target is simply a matter of keeping it on the same point on the windscreen.

    Correct.

    I never understood why pilots make so much fuss about landing and spend hours training it: you just have to keep the threshold – normally big white stripes and a number – on your windshield. And when this target fills the whole windshield, you know you have to cut the throttle back to idle and pull the nose up.

    Flying a plane is easy.

  127. Gerard says:
    @Iris

    Temperatures of appr. 3000C does melt steel. Aviation fuel reaches temperatures of appr. 1500 C.
    There is video evidence of a series of explosions from the three towers. People on the ground who saw the planes before they crashed into the buildings stated that the planes did not look like passenger liners. At the time of the attack there were warplane game exercises going. Coincidence?

    • Replies: @Iris
  128. Iris says:
    @Gerard

    Temperatures of appr. 3000C does melt steel. Aviation fuel reaches temperatures of appr. 1500 C.

    I think that you are confusing degree Celsius and degree Fahrenheit.

    Jet fuels burn at a temperature of up to (maximum) 1500 degree Fahrenheit, which is only 815 degree Celsius.
    https://www.reference.com/world-view/temperature-jet-fuel-burn-e3ad8709cbb3330a

    A basic property of chemical compounds is that they burn at their own, specific, characteristic flame temperature, called adiabatic flame temperature.

    No matter how much of the considered fuel you burn, 100 gallons or a 100 million gallons, the temperature reached in either situation can never exceed the fuel’s specific adiabatic flame temperature.
    Therefore, the highest possible temperature at the Twin Towers should have been about 815 degree Celsius, from the burning of the alleged “kerosene”.

    Steel temperature, in turn, can be visually assessed using its temperature colour chart. The yellow steel dripping from the South Tower was over 1000 degree Celsius, a temperature that could never have been achieved by the “kerosene” which burns circa 815 degree Celsius at most.

    This is why it is obvious, just by a simple qualitative assessment, that the 9/11 official narrative is a grotesque lie.

    Some truthers have made quantitative assessments, which are equally damning :

    “In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behaviour of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.”

    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  129. Iris says:

    Was 9/11 deliberately designed to cause the maximum possible number of victims at the WTC?

    Fact 2: The Alarm System of WTC7 was disabled early in the morning of 9/11.

    This fact is described in the NIST report:

    “at 6:47 AM, September 11, 2001, the WTC Building 7’s Alarm System was placed on the “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored”

    The technical statement in the NIST report is incomplete and deceiving.

    An integrated alarm system, although principally built to detect fire hazard situations, is also used to detect and raise alarm about any other potential hazards requiring evacuation: hazardous gas leaks, terrorism. More importantly, its role is not just to receive alarms from a building: it can also send alarms to another.

    The embedded demolition scheme control room for the Twin Towers was centralised and based in WTC7. Because it had been initially designed by professional engineers, not by criminals, they conceived the system to safely operate only after the Twin Towers had been emptied.

    As a mandatory safety feature, they linked the activation of the demolition scheme to the WTC7 alarm system, which upon receiving an input signal informing of such activation, would in turn generate an output signal towards the remote alarm systems of the North and South Tower. These two would consequently trigger the local alarms (pre-recorded public address message or alarm sound) that would ultimately ensure that anybody accidentally left inside inside would evacuate the Towers and wouldn’t get harmed.

    But of course, this alarm remote reporting would only work if the WTC7 alarm system was itself in proper working order: a “TEST” mode disables alarming functions, as it is designed to permit maintenance without causing disturbance.

    By putting the system in TEST mode at 06:47 in the morning of the attack, the insiders with foreknowledge of the attack ensured that no alarm would be generated in the Twin Towers, so no evacuation occurs and the maximum number of people get killed.

    The alarm was, however, not disabled inside WTC7, to protect the 9/11 insiders who activated the demolition.

    Listen to the special two-tones alarm sounding just inside WTC7, not outside of it: this was the alarm informing that the nuclear controlled demolition scheme had been activated:

  130. RodW says:
    @The Alarmist

    An airframe at that speed would be sufficiently rigid to slice through the exterior columns,

    Are you perhaps suggesting that speed has the effect of hardening aluminium and carbon fibre? What’s the formula for that?

    Presumably then if I throw a can of soda sufficiently fast at a chain link fence, at the given speed the can will become rigid enough to slice through the fence. Yes, I can picture it in my mind’s eye…

  131. @Iris

    According to Wikipedia,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature

    … it’s 2093 C ; 3801 F for Kerosene … the fuel used in Jet aircraft.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  132. @Alberta Vince

    Respectfully, no matter the temperature kerosene burns at there isn’t any kerosene left after a jet crashes. People (not you) are trying to compare the very hottest point of a constant theoretical kerosene flame with a real world crash, where the fuel is dispersed and flashed in a ball of flame.

    The flash can be observed both in the video I posted above, and in the WTC videos themselves. Big ball of flame, then black smoke, ie no more kerosene.

    The wiki link confirms that is only a theoretical temperature.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  133. @RodW

    No, if you throw a can of soda fast enough it will turn into a cruise missile, and punch through several inches of concrete and steel, leaving a perfectly round Wile E Coyote hole.

    I’m pretty certain this is how the ancient Egyptians punched the holes in granite pictured below.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  134. @Genrick Yagoda

    I know, I know!~ I just put that in there to “show” that we often cavalierly throw around “facts” which turn out to be false … which doesn’t do much for our credibility.

    My own contention to the “kerosene can’t melt steel” argument is that if that were true, there would be no need to use titanium in the blades of the rear turbines of jet engines. Those blades turn nearly white hot.

    If mixed with straight oxygen, atomized kerosene would probably cut through steel far thicker than acetylene can ! The heat value is derived from the number of carbon atoms per molecule of the material. Hydrogen heats too but not nearly as much as carbon.

    So yeah … the temperature is highly variable and depends on how much oxygen the mist can immediately access and consume.

    But now here’s a thought (tongue in cheek) …

    What IF the engines from those airplanes got turned around and BLASTED the central columns. Can you IMAGINE how fast they’d melt down? Almost like a nuclear blast, eh?

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @The Alarmist
  135. Iris says:
    @Alberta Vince

    If mixed with straight oxygen, atomized kerosene would probably cut through steel far thicker than acetylene can !

    If you had understood the content in the link you posted, you would have realised that the steel-melting temperature of kerosene flame you believe possible is for laboratory controlled-conditions: (1) at constant pressure, and (2) for a stoichiometric fuel-oxidizer mixture, i.e. a mixture where the compound (the kerosene-based fuel) and the oxidizer (the oxygen in the atmosphere) are in such a perfectly precise ratio that both the reactants are completely exhausted after the completion of the reaction.

    So what should we believe?
    That aboard the “planes”, would have also have come kamikaze operatives who not only survived and managed to keep the kerosene at constant pressure under a magic pressurised vessel, but also, by some miracle, succeeded in eliminating the oxygen present in the surrounding atmosphere (21% of it), so as to realise a perfectly stochiometric reaction? Wow, just wow.

    Eliminating the oxygen present in the atmosphere, to which the Twin Towers were open to after the explosions, is another 9/11 Physics-defying miracle I wasn’t aware of, a truly gigantic one.
    Glory to Yahve for whom no miracle is impossible, especially the most profound, common sense-defying, Hasbaric imbecilities.

  136. Yes, wow is right! Wow, wow and more wow!!!

    So what should we believe?
    That aboard the “planes”, would have also have come kamikaze operatives who …. by some miracle, succeeded in eliminating the oxygen present in the surrounding atmosphere (21% of it), so as to realise a perfectly stochiometric reaction? Wow, just wow.

    Since when did elimination of oxygen in an oxygen/hydrocarbon reaction (ie, burning kerosene) … happen to make the non-reaction HOTTER? Good god, you are a wow job all right!

    Y’know, you say things which I’m sure you haven’t even given a thought. In the old days -before electricity abounded … they used to heat hydrocarbons (wood) in oxygen deprived ovens and generated charcoal, tars and gas. Raw hydrogen and carbon monoxide were extracted directly from these “hives” and transported by pipes through towns and cities for the purpose of providing LIGHT in mantle lamps. It’s what they called “gas lighting”. Today that expression means something else and I believe it is what you are trying to do!~ LOL

    Had you said “the elimination of nitrogen from the surrounding atmosphere” (78% of it -from the air inside of the WTC towers) I would have agreed … at least partially. That’ more in line with the position I used to take in defending the official story.

    • Troll: Iris
  137. @Genrick Yagoda

    No, that was done by time-travelling, shape-shifting Jews’ lasers.

  138. @RodW

    T. Wierzbicki & X. Teng of MIT did a nice paper on this….

    The airplane wing is a complex structure composed of open section beams, ribs, and skin reinforced by stringers. Upon impact by smaller objects such as hail, birds, etc. the leading edge of the airfoil will clearly be dented and the degree of damage will depend on the size and speed of the aircraft. The process of interactive failure of two deformable and fracturing bodies is very complex and could only be solved by means of numerical methods.

    However, it was observed that if all structural members of the wing are lumped together and smeared into a box beam of equivalent mass, its thickness becomes over 100 mm which is ten times larger than the 9.5 mm thickness of the hollow external column of the Twin Towers. Therefore, in the first approximation, the impacting segment of the wing is treated as a rigid mass. The failure process of the exterior column is divided into three phases: instantaneous cutting through the front flange; tearing of side webs; and finally, tensile fracture of the rear flange. The impact problem is dominated by the local inertia of the box column so that plastic deformation and fracture are restricted to the immediate vicinity of the stricken part of the column. Each stage of the failure process is analyzed in the paper using the rigorous calculation method while still retaining the simplicity of the closed-form solutions.

    It is recognized that the fuel in the wing tanks will greatly increase the mass per unit length of the wings and add to their devastating power. High velocity impact of fuel-filled tanks into deformable structures constitutes a challenging problem by itself and will be addressed in future research.

    The minimum impact velocity to cause fracture was determined from Eq. (24) to be 155 m/s. Should the aircraft be traveling not at a cruising speed but at a much lower take-off or landing speed of 200 mph (about 100 m/s), then the exterior columns would appear to have deflected the wings without fracture.

    It is concluded that the process of wing cutting through the exterior columns dissipated only 1.139MJ of energy. This constitutes only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing. The remaining 93.3% of the kinetic energy was then transferred into the interior of the building causing fatal damage to the floors and core structure. The present analysis introduced a substantial correction to the earlier estimate of the energy required to shear the column reported in Ref. [1] but in each case the energy to break the airplane wing through the exterior facade of the TwinTowers is insignificant.

    source: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

  139. @Alberta Vince

    To your point, the wind whipping up the sides of the Towers and through the gashes in the side, through the interior, and up the centre columns, would have essentially produced a blast furnace effect, fanning the flames. That, plus oxidised aluminum and oxidised iron that would have created an exothermic reaction, would have generated more than high enough to severely compromise, if not actually melt, steel, and would have left significant traces of thermite behind in the rubble (Kerosene plus aluminum as an oxidiser is one form of rocket fuel).

    Iris, Yagoda, et al. have no clue about that which they are asserting.

  140. That sounds about “right” according to arguments I made around 10 years ago! The blast furnace idea, anyway.

    True enough that if you blow on a fire, it will get bigger, hotter and faster than if left to its own means of natural aspiration. I used the example of an old fashioned steel forge with finely ground coal which was used by blacksmiths in the old days for heating iron to near-melting temperatures. The nearly melted iron could then be beaten into desired shapes … or even WELDED together by beating two hot pieces into each other.

    Another example was a coal oil stove where the oil was gravitated through a pipe against which the flame from a wick below would play … to heat the liquid into a hot vapor, before it came out of the wick at the bottom. As the stove burned, the wick had to be retracted more and more while less and less fuel was burning to produce a hotter and hotter blue flame. (Kerosene/coal oil normally burns only yellow and produces a lot of carbon smoke if you don’t get the ratio just right {in an old wick lamp}).

    The “secret” to increasing the temperature of a burn is to increase the surface area exposure of a hot volatile gas to the available oxygen in the atmosphere around it to make it burn most efficiently and completely with nothing unreacted left over. An atmosphere of pure oxygen for instance, would increase the temperature of burning vaporized fuel to a level that could easily melt steel.

    The towers MIGHT have provided such a blast furnace effect since we saw most of the smoke emanating 20 floors above the original impact sites … but … I no longer hold to that theory in the slightest since there are so MANY proofs now available that they were destroyed on purpose … and you simply don’t try to do that by flying planes into structures and hoping for the “best”.

    Besides which, the original chief engineer of the twin towers -Leslie Robertson- made a most unusual comment about the towers’ destruction shortly after 9/11 when he said that the fires were “compression fires”. He explained that the tower had sealed windows through which NO fire or smoke could escape and since he SAW smoke coming out of the windows regardless, he assumed (I’m sure, out of a sense of desperation) that the fires must be exerting IMMENSE PRESSURE on those sealed windows!

    Well … well …

    If there WAS that kind of pressure from the point of impact and upward …

    1) there’s no possible way that the blast furnace principle could have worked. That method would need a clear and open “duct” or chimney in order to culminate into a roaring furnace.

    2) there’s no possible way for the fires to have spread as fast as we saw, in the first place … or escaped from the windows, period. The buildings were intentionally DESIGNED to hold fires down to single floors and -in the worst case scenario- to spread through the cores ONLY as far as each elevator set would allow. If you recall, NO elevators went more than about 20 floors and at the termination point of each set, the “shaft” was stopped by a solid floor. The only exception was a freight elevator which went the total distance but in a different location from the other elevators.

    The fires were SET in the roof trusses to start with; they never originated at the supposed points of airplane impacts. The planes idea was merely used to cover up for the intentional procedure.

    That, plus oxidised aluminum and oxidised iron that would have created an exothermic reaction, would have generated more than high enough to severely compromise, if not actually melt, steel, and would have left significant traces of thermite behind in the rubble (Kerosene plus aluminum as an oxidiser is one form of rocket fuel).

    Woa, woa … one thing and one step at time now!~ (I’m not sure if you’re serious or not here … but just in case …)

    Oxidized aluminum or aluminum oxide -Al2O3- IS the product of a thermite burn reaction. It’s a white smoke.

    In nature however, aluminum oxide is quite prolific, found in a clay called “bauxite”. While the chemical steps are a bit involved, the bottom line is that aluminum in nature is also Al2O3 but … it’s very energy expensive to turn into aluminum metal. The aluminum oxygen bond is extremely tough to break and takes extreme energy to do. Producing aluminum from bauxite then is not cost effective unless … you can somehow get a free energy source which can be “wasted” without any major cost. That’s where hydro electric power comes in. The water power is completely free and never-ending and it makes no difference whether used or “wasted” … the water goes where it’s going regardless.

    My point in saying this is that whenever you have chemical reactions that are reversible … the conservation of energy is maintained. So … if you turn Al2O3 into aluminum metal, you ABSORB immense energy but on the other hand, if you BURN aluminum … you RELEASE the same vast amount of energy that was needed in order to “create” the metal.

    The same principle holds true for nitrogen based explosives. It takes vast amounts of energy to combine nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen gases into anhydrous ammonia and nitric acid and then a reaction between those two to produce a solid substance known as ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) fertilizer. In a nitrogen based explosion … all of that energy is released and the gases return back to their original state.

    Now, although aluminum is a very reactive metal, it is SO reactive that it normally/naturally covers itself with a thin layer of Al2O3 immediately when the raw metal is exposed to air … which then seals the metal from the air around it, preventing further oxidation. This is why aluminum never shines like silver or chrome; it always has a hazy covering of Al2O3 surrounding the internal metal.

    Aluminum is also hard to start on fire because it tends to sort of “sublimate” into a gas when burned which then oxidizes in an expansion process … which causes cooling. This may sound kind of weird since heat causes compression and so burning something should INCREASE compression and result in producing even more heat … but this is definitely NOT always the case. Ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) and anhydrous ammonia are two more examples of substances which are easy enough to ignite but then the expanding gas from that ignition is so huge and rapid, it COOLS the burn location enough to put out the fire.

    However, given the right conditions, aluminum will burn extremely hot too, producing a white hot flame … much like a magnesium flare.

    In thermite, on the other hand, the finely ground particles of aluminum and iron oxide mixed together essentially “compliment” each other. The burning transfers heat to the iron oxide which is being “consumed” by the burning aluminum and thereby containing the heat that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as an expanding gas. The aluminum powder turns into Al2O3 smoke all right but the iron oxide -stripped of its oxygen content- runs out as liquid iron.

    So I’m GUESSING that a thermite reaction likely reaches temperatures well above what aluminum burning by itself … could produce.

    (Kerosene plus aluminum as an oxidiser is one form of rocket fuel).

    Well aluminum isn’t an oxidizer but it’s quite possible that finely ground aluminum could be used to boost the power of burning kerosene in a rocket situation … IF … pure oxygen is used to burn both products. (No relying on atmospheric oxygen for this, LOL).

    I have no doubt that thermite would have been sufficient to cut the towers’ structural steel to pieces but the more I look at it, the more I’m tending to think that the EXPLOSIVE forces we saw when they “collapsed” was NOT the result of thermite … because if it was, we should have seen some sign of burning thermite residue … somewhere. Thermite doesn’t burn very fast.

    While I don’t buy the nuclear theory for a moment, I’m guessing that some other kind of high/fast explosive was utilized which was ground into fine dust-like stuff and then used to fill the floors and maybe some of the other structural steel or space in the core … as well.

    The explosion was markedly not a burning explosion but something which went fast and hardly raised the ambient temperature at all.

    Kind of reminds me of a steam explosion which is also a low temperature thing.

    BTW, did you know that in metal fabricating shops the workers are warned NOT to use the same abrasive grinding wheels on aluminum that they previously used on iron/steel? Ha ha … some interesting explosions have happened when the advise wasn’t heeded! The explosions are strong enough to throw the grinders right out of the hands of the operators. This is small scale thermite reaction.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  141. @Alberta Vince

    I do believe the official story. I think it was a brilliant case of engineering. I believe bin Laden and his recruited crew actually carried it out.

    I also believe the technical details were worked out with supercomputer modelling by dark forces in at least one country, more likely two, and the details on how to make it work were dropped into bin Laden’s hands by the agents of one of the shadowy intel agencies of the countries that designed the plan. I believe bin Laden became an inconvenient agent who was iced in 2001 and only thawed out and fed to the bottom feeders of the Indian Ocean when Obama and The Hilbot need to boost their cred.

    This is all more easily believable than the histrionic explanations of how the destruction “could only possibly be done.”

    • LOL: Genrick Yagoda
  142. If you’re still of that opinion nearly 20 years later I won’t delude myself into thinking that anything I say could possibly change your mind now!~

    Instead, I’ll ask you some questions and whether you answer them here or to yourself only … is entirely up to you.

    1) When you first saw the towers come down (almost identically) … did the visual strike you as explosions or just natural collapses?

    2) Did you wonder where in hell all the jet fighters might be that are SUPPOSED to catch these things within MINUTES?

    Remember the story of Payne Stewart, the golfer who died in a mysterious plane crash in October of 1999 after the Lear jet he was in had been flying itself by autopilot for several hours and then ran out of fuel?

    Well, that was “just” a small chartered private aircraft with a few souls on board and yet … within about 40 minutes, fighter jets were scrambled and following it high in the sky.

    With the WTC disasters however, there were NO fighter jets to intercept ANY of the 4 hijacked commercial aircraft within a time frame of nearly 2 hours.

    How would you explain that? Where were all the fighter interceptors that day and why didn’t they respond?

    3) Did you wonder later why NO investigation was launched into the incredible lapse of attention by the U.S. air force … why NO ONE was reprimanded or fired … but instead, all people in charge were quietly promoted?

    4) Did you ever wonder WHY Bin Laden would deny having been involved with the operation after having (supposedly) achieved an unprecedented miracle, potentially wrought by Allah on his behalf? Why Yasser Arafat would immediately sympathize with the plight of the victims and donate blood … and NONE of the Arab/Muslim world ever bothered to take advantage of their apparent miraculous achievement. The only people who danced were Israelis!

    Who profited from the operation? It certainly wasn’t the Arab Muslims; they only lost. So why would they do it in the first place?

    5) Did you ever wonder how it was possible that WTC 7 – a 47 story skyscraper which was sandwiched between two other buildings and across the street from the WTC complex to the north- could have totally collapsed into its own footprint when it wasn’t subject to any exceptional stresses which the adjoining buildings didn’t also receive but didn’t bring THEM down? I mean, it was just incredible to see! The only building owned by the same guy who had only months previously acquired a 99 year lease on the WTC complex itself and had (very thoughtfully) and specifically insured everything against individual terrorist attacks! He invested around $14 million of his own money and walked away with $4.55 billion in insurance payouts!! (He’d been trying and hoping for around $7 billion insurance pay since TWO planes struck buildings, see?) How could he have been so SMART??? Building 7 just slid down like a classic demolition … into a pile of rubble between the other 2 neighboring structures. How could that happen?

    6) Who ultimately profited most from the events of 9/11 and the subsequent fallout? As the saying goes, when looking for a culprit … “follow the money”? Was it Muslims? Was it the U.S. ? Or was it possibly Israel?

    7) Could this POSSIBLY have been an Israeli conspiracy from start to finish? The U.S. federal government is LOADED with Israeli dual citizens, after all. Dual citizenry isn’t allowed in the U.S. government body … except if they’re Israelis or Jews. Why is that?

  143. @Alberta Vince

    1) Collapse consistent with gravity pulling centre of mass to Earth. The Towers vertical strength was not strong enough to impede the collapsing debris in any meaningful way.

    2) CONUS hadn’t had a serious air defence alert capability in decades. Most of what might have been on alert were Guard and Reserve. They didn’t think they woul ever face a serious threat, and they almost certainly didn’t think it would be from airliners in the ATC system (Despite a Tom Clancy book using that as a plot device a few years before). The fighters scrambled from DC weren’t even armed. Up to that point, the US faced no serious aerial threat, with counter-smuggling being the most active defence in regular service.

    The only reason Payne Stewart’s aircraft was intercepted so quickly was that it’s routing was pretty much over Eglin AFB, and an F-16 from there was already airborne in the vicinity, so it was essentially a non-issue for ATC to ask him to go take a look.

    3) Indeed, people should have been publicly executed for serious lapses of judgement. First rule of the Deep State: Don’t discuss the Deep State. Second rule: Always protect the Deep State.

    4) Good question. Why did the Cheney-Bush administration fly the other bin Laden family members out of the US shortly after the event?

    5) No. They were built to building codes in effect at the end of the ‘60s. My condo in the US was built in the mid-‘70s, and had to be retrofit with fire-stop around the cabling ducts a few years ago. WTC 7 wasn’t a particularly robust structure to start with; it burned, the support structure failed, and gravity did the rest.

    6) The Deep State and their whorish neocon camp followers. Israel is part of that cabal.

    7) Yes, but they have plenty of natural born US citizen accomplices.

  144. @Alberta Vince

    You are a brave man to attempt to talk sense with this “engineer”, my friend. After all, this is a guy who think no building above can cause a building below to disintegrate into dust. It’s a miracle all buildings in the world don’t spontaneously disintegrate, using these sort of physics.

    Best of luck

  145. Responding:

    1) Collapse consistent with gravity pulling centre of mass to Earth. The Towers vertical strength was not strong enough to impede the collapsing debris in any meaningful way

    Gravity may pull toward the center of the earth but what happens when something gets between a falling mass and the earth when it’s not exactly centered under the falling mass? You get deflections … much like billiard balls striking each other. Things vear off to one side … where most of the force hits on the opposite side. Thus, it’s impossible to get a natural collapse that’s perfectly symmetrical. The falling object will always be deflected to one particular side.

    The WTC towers collapsed completely in something like 10 seconds … meaning that there was NOTHING “in between” the falling material and the ground to slow the fall. They went down at free-fall velocity.

    Ironically the same year as 9/11 but in the month of May … a dance hall floor collapsed in Israel during a wedding reception, dropping through 4 stories. The falling distance was reportedly 90 feet. Here’s a URL to a video of the event:

    Now if you use a stopwatch to time the sound of the falling crescendo, it lasted about 17 seconds. That’s almost twice as long for everything to finish falling through 90 feet as it took for the 1360 ft. towers to hit the ground! Do you recognise a problem there with the natural collapse claim?

    2) CONUS hadn’t had a serious air defence alert capability in decades. Most of what might have been on alert were Guard and Reserve. They didn’t think they woul ever face a serious threat, and they almost certainly didn’t think it would be from airliners in the ATC system (Despite a Tom Clancy book using that as a plot device a few years before).

    Or how about a more plausible explanation that Donald Rumsfeld had changed the rules for engagement of fighter pilot interception … taking that decision out of THEIR hands and putting it into his own?

    b. On June 1, 2001, Rumsfeld signed on to a revision of previous procedures for interception of errant flights, which specified for the first time that cases of potential intercept orders for errant flights are to be forwarded “to the Secretary of Defense for approval.” (CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A)

    That change was abandoned shortly after 9/11 … having served the purpose of NO ONE having authority to scramble jets without consulting Rumsfeld first … and then Rumsfeld being inaccessible all morning on 9/11.

    Furthermore, despite your perception of “ignorance” ( who would have DREAMED that planes might be hijacked and flown into the towers? ) … there were no less than 46 drills going on on 9/11 which (a) tied up the fighter jets and (b) confused all the flight controllers because the drill planes weren’t showing their radar tokens. They had no idea whether the events were real or were just being simulated in drills … so of course, they were extremely slow to respond because they assumed they were observing air force drills.

    Here’s a Guns and Butter show featuring Webster Tarpley who compiled the drill information …

    #3 No comment.

    5) … WTC 7 wasn’t a particularly robust structure to start with; it burned, the support structure failed, and gravity did the rest.

    Did you ever see the Barry Jennings interview?

    Building 7 was already “bombed” internally before the twin towers collapsed! Something must NOT have gone according to plan because the structure remained intact externally until about 5:30 in the afternoon! Larry Silverstein -owner of WTC7- later explained that firemen had “pulled” the building … which -in pro-demolition language means that they demolished it with explosives.

    The perps must have been in a near panic because there was NOTHING to explain why it would collapse of its own accord. And that’s still the Achille’s heel of the official 9/11 story.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS