The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Nine-Eleven by the Numbers
Fred to Go into Hiding in Patagonia
🔊 Listen RSS
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
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

In the mysteriously continuing hoorawhaw over whether the Twin Towers were brought down by an “inside job,”I have often ignited the fury of the extraordinarily sensitive Truthers, who believe in intentional demolition,. My sin was pointing out that demolition is a physical undertaking. It is not metaphorical. Physical explosives in specific quantities must be put in actual places. If it cannot be shown that this would be physically possible, an inside job did not happen.

It is hard to get specifics from Truthers, but the centerline story is that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, blew up the Towers. This was to provide a pretext for the US to attack Iraq. Sometimes the CIA and President Bush II are said to be involved.

Stories differ considerably. Several Truthers have said or implied that all 110 floors must have been rigged for demolition. This would explain why structural materials were converted into fine dust and why floors collapsed consecutively at a higher rate than (say the Truthers) can be explained by gravity. Well, OK. Whatever brought the Towers down did indeed do it rapidly.

Another centerline assertion is that nanothermite was used to melt through the steel columns supporting the buildings This stuff burns at a horrific temperature and can in fact be used to melt through things.

Using these assumptions, we will make worst-case baseline calculations and then modify the assumption as desired.

The Towers were held up by an exoskeleton of massive steel columns, fifty-nine on each of their four faces, for a total of 236). The 236 column segments visible on a single floor would require the placing of 236 charges. If we assume that a Mossad Demolition Expert (hereinafter MDE) can place one charge per night, then a single MDE would require 236 nights, or 7.87 months, to place charges on an entire floor. Of course, 236 Mossad agents could rig a floor in one night.

There being 110 floors, the entire Tower would have about 110 times 236 column segments or, to a close approximation, 25,960. This would take one MDE a bit over 71 years, though 236 MDEs could do it in110 nights, or just under four months. Of course, 25,960 MDEs could rig the entire building to blow in one night, but this seems improbable.

Let us assume that each column segment would require ten pounds of nanothermite. Thus a single floor would require 2,360 pounds or 1.18 tons. All 110 floors would then require 129.8 tons. We may guess, without really knowing, that several eighteen-wheelers would bring this from wherever Mossad gets its nanothermite.

Inside the Twin Towers. Note the steel column segments, completely visible from within offices. Key phrase: Completely visible. Since the Towers were office buildings, all or virtually all would be visible to office workers.
Inside the Twin Towers. Note the steel column segments, completely visible from within offices. Key phrase: Completely visible. Since the Towers were office buildings, all or virtually all would be visible to office workers.

But things become more complicated. To place the charges, the MDEs would have to remove the cosmetic covering from the column segments. It looks like plaster. Thus each MDE would have to be accompanied by a Trained Traceless Mossad Plasterer, or TTMP, to replace the covering unnoticeably. He could perhaps dry it quickly with a hair dryer. Of course if the covering is other than plaster, another sort of workman would be necessary. We will here not investigate the tonnage of plaster needed if indeed plaster was used.

Presumably Mossad has rapid replacers of various types of material, wood, drywall, wallpaper, what have you.

A minor complication would be getting rid of the fire-retardant insulation that usually covers structural steel, it being well known that heat both weakens steel and causes it to expand.

Doing all of this without drawing the attention of the office workers would seem problematic. (Unless they were Mossad Trained Suicide Office Workers, of course.) Another problem is that the janitorial and maintenance staff might wonder why strangers were running about with nanothermite and detonators and tearing plaster off column segments. The best explanation is that they were in the pay of Mossad.

Now, as aforesaid, these calculations can be modified to reflect different assumptions. For example, if we assume that only five pounds of nanothermite are needed to melt through a massive steel column, instead of ten, then the tonnage of nanothermite per floor can be reduced to just over half a ton . If only one pound per column segment is needed, then only 2390 pounds, a a bit over a ton, would serve for the whole building. If a tenth of a pound of nanothermite could cut a massive steel column, then 239 pounds would bring down the whole building.

If we further assume that only every other column has to be blown to bring the building down as observed, this halves the nanothermite weight again to a quarter ton, and so on.

If Truthers do not find these admirable calculations satisfactory, then by all means they should offer others. They may suggest a means of destruction that I have never heard of. The point is that a theory should be physically plausible.

Truthers might argue that dropping just one floor would be sufficient, which floor would jar loose the one below and so on in a chain reaction, thus requiring the placing of nanothermits on only one floor. This comes perilously close to the Official Story.

Since the Towers clearly began collapsong at or near the site of the plane strikes, the Israeli Suicide Pilots would have to know just what floor to run into. This would take good flying, but is certainly possible. I have heard that the suicide pilots trained by running El Al airliners into mock-ups of the Towers secretly built into a mountainside near the Dead Sea, but I regard this as speculative.

Now, Building Seven. Why blow it up at all? Doing so throws doubt on the desired conclusion that the Towers were knocked down by the airplanes since Building Seven didn’t have an airplane but dropped anyway. I have read several times that the CIA had incriminating documents in its office in the building, and planted charges to destroy them.

Now, Gentle Reader, if you or I wanted to destroy embarrassing documents, we would feed them into a paper shredder and burn the chaff in an incinerator. It seems that when the CIA wants to destroy documents, it blows up the building.

But enough on the housekeeping peculiarities of the ClA. Tell me a story, any story, but please, please make it physically possible.

Write Fred at [email protected]. Put the letters “pdq” anywhere in the subject line, quotes not needed, to avoid autodeletion. Reply not guaranteed due to volume.

• Category: History • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories, Mossad 
Hide 225 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Well good for you, Fred. This one ought to generate over 800 comments within a few days. It’s not like there’s any other writing here on unz about anything like this!*

    I do appreciate the original thoughts from Fred here rather than a rehash of his usual promotion of his new-found Mexicanity. On the placement of demolition charges, maybe Mr. Reed has never worked in an office, but I could see where “maintenance men” might be seen working on installing “new routers” or what-have-you for months, one or two floors a day. I’m not sure the average cubical Finance-Joe would know what’s going on.

    You are reading from a guy with a blog that will likely NOT TOUCH this subject, due to having enough humility to admit that I do not know all the physics to say something certain. I will dismiss the “no airplanes” theory right away from knowledge that I do have.

    However, one thing I HAVE written about, just this week, in “Motherland Security knows best” is that a) I do think the US Feral Gov’t, with the evil types that really run things, is quite capable of nefarious deeds that may happen to kill a few thousand Americans, and b) 9/11 so happened to be such a great excuse to implement a Police State. Lucky for us, some plans for “Patriot Acts” and such had already been hashed out.

    American are pretty much inured to the encroachment of the Police State, as especially noted at the airports – Peak Stupidity wrote: “16 Years of Spreading Democracy – They still hate us for our freedoms(?)” on the anniversary in ’17. (That post was written based on the assumption that the official story is truthful.)


    * OK, I’ll give Fred a break by noting that this is not the only “venue” for his columns, so maybe he doesn’t read much else of the site.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  2. The Truthers are sad deluded people, rather like the die-hard Republican nuts who maintain that FDR ‘planned’ Pearl Harbor.

    What few people seem to grasp is that no ‘pretext’ was needed to go to war with Iraq. Since Iraq had never met the terms of the agreed terms of surrender, we were already at war with them.

    Add that to the absurdity of the ‘planted demolition’ model.

  3. onebornfree says: • Website

    Dear Fred, some facts for you:

    1] At least 7 buildings were destroyed on 9/11, not just 3 [WTC’s 1,2, and 7]- some say the figure is even higher [9 buildings].

    2] All of the alleged live footage for all 5 US MSM networks broadcast on the morning of 9/11 [ ABC, CBS, CNN,FOX, NBC] that depicts either Fl.175 striking WTC 2, or the collapse of either WTC 1,2, or 7, is fake “live” footage , manufactured on computers [ie CGI] , months, possibly years before 9/11, then broadcast as “live” footage that day.

    Therefor, contrary to the claims of truther groups like 9/11 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: ,or individuals such as Judy Wood: , absolutely nothing concerning the demolition methodology used to bring down the towers can be learned from studying any of the 100% fake, tower collapse videos.

    One of the only people to figure out the complete fraudulence of the original “live” US MSM footage for 9/11 was/is film maker and lone 9/11 researcher Simon Shack, who published his research backing up his claims back in 2008.

    See : ” The 9/11 Scam-The Faked “Live” MSM Imagery”

    Regards, onebornfree

  4. But enough on the housekeeping peculiarities of the ClA. Tell me a story, any story, but please, please make it physically possible.

    That’s a fair request. The thing is, even the best combustion engineers and crash specialists cannot really model exactly where the fuel from said airplanes would go, how long it would stay in various places, and at what temperatures. It’s a hell of a complex problem. Do you trust this expert or the other expert that said the opposite? Maybe there is some basic physics that says the towers could not have collapsed as the official story says, but I have not heard something completely convincing.

    To me, the best way to know the truth would be to talk to people who spent time in this building, or the clean-up of the building, or time as higher-ups in parts of the US Gov’t that investigated. You’ll hear that everyone was shut up in one way or another, but that is difficult for me to believe.

    I dunno, but thanks for the decent thought- and comment-provoking post this time, Mr. Reed.

  5. ThereisaGod says: • Website

    Buildings do not spontaneously collapse into their own footprints without resistance at free-fall speeds (like WTC7 measurably did for 2.5 secs of its collapse) nor at speeds very close to free-fall like WTCs 1 & 2 did, because of fires in very limited parts of the buildings. Never before, Never since. All 3 were OBVIOUS demolitions. The further fact that there were fires/glowing heat in the debris at ground level until into November (as reported by numerous firefighters) tells you there were alien chemicals used during the operation.

    Just f*ck off Fred, you a*sehole.

  6. Instead of ridiculing the “truthers”, why not admit the impossibility of the official explanation, that jet fuel was hot enough to melt the steel columns, that it melted enough of them so that one floor could “pancake” on another, thus bringing the towers down in their own footprints, which is what controlled demolition does. Not even the Village Idiot believes that ridiculous bullshit any more. Explosions were heard in the basements of the towers and throughout, the buildings fell by controlled demolition. Truthers may not know exactly how it was done or who did it, but maybe the “dancing Israelis” could give us a clue. They said they were there to “record” the event. Oh. I remember reading that in the year before 9/11 whole floors of the towers were closed off for weeks as “workers” came and went. Look at the pictures. Material from explosions (not from pancaking) was blown out sideways 50 feet or more.

    Yes, and 6 of the Saudi “hijackers”, none of whom could fly a kite, much less a jet plane, were found alive and well the next day in Saudi Arabia. There are more holes in this ridiculous official lie than is found in Swiss cheese.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @amused
    , @Bill Jones
  7. onebornfree says: • Website

    Also see: “GHOST PLANES: How did all the physical evidence of terrorist planes on 9/11 mysteriously vanish?”:

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Max Blancke
  8. As was pointed out at the time, the “19 Arabs” with box cutters (Olfa knives) of the official conspiracy theory, were so clever, that they suspended the laws of physics. Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, yet, these clever Arabs figured out how to do that. Not only that, it was so hot, there were melted steel columns still liquid more than a week later. Devilishly clever, those Arabs, they even found a way to toss out a passport before the plane hit the building.
    Of course William Rodriguez, the janitor of WTC1 who saved people, was entirely wrong when he said that there was an explosion in the basement before the plane hit.
    All the firemen that reported hearing “pop,pop, pop” were mistaken too.
    The architect who designed the towers to withstand being hit by a plane, was lying when he said he couldn’t understand how the building could have collapsed.
    Let’s not even think about how 3 buildings full of asbestos and about to be condemned, fell at near free fall speed.
    There are more holes in the official conspiracy theory than there are in a colander. Go back to sleep Fred

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Frizz
  9. aletho says: • Website

    Obviously it does not require 71 years and 130 tons of explosives to reg a demolition.

    If you get nutty results from your calculation re-check your presumptions.

  10. Ko says:

    Are you assuming the plane weren’t drones?

  11. I think the ‘truthers’ are patsies.

    It suits our handlers to a tee that they run wild with massive, improbable, and irrational conspiracy theories. If you’re going to blow up the buildings, why bother with planes and all the problematical hijackings, etc? What if something goes amiss? It’s going to be awkward when a building goes kaboom even though the plane didn’t show up.

    Just blow the building, then ‘find’ the remnants of a U-haul rented by Osama bin Laden himself in the parking garage. It’s relatively simple, much less prone to error, and serves all the same ends.

    But no. It was all a set up: ‘hijackings,’ ‘planes,’ al Qaeda, and the rest of it. The most massively elaborate hoax ever conceived — and it all went off as planned.

    Meanwhile, no one notices the Israeli agents that inarguably were there, mysteriously knew when and where the attacks were going to be, and were seen filming it and were arrested by the FBI and held for eleven weeks. Can you imagine how suspicious the FBI must have been to hold on to them that long in spite of all the pressure Israel no doubt brought to bear?

    But never mind all that. Instead, we get 9/11 truthers being ridiculous. Don’t you realize you’re being used? You’re the clown riding a unicycle around the square so no one notices the guy stealing the car.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  12. Here is the paper by Harritt and Jones that found nanothermite in the dust. If you can’t understand it, then maybe you should not be writing an article like the one you did.

    Nanothermite, unlike thermite, is not just a steel cutter; it is also an explosive.

    And if you read the paper, approximately .1% of their dust samples were the red/gray chips of nanothermitic material. And if you read where the dust came from, these were clearly random samples collected near the WTC’s.

    If you don’t want to believe this analysis, well then I suggest you quit going to a doctor for lab results. The process is essentially the same whether you are looking in dust for explosives or looking in blood for cholesterol.

  13. Fred,

    Not only do Americans curiously, consistently, continuously and conspiratorially cultivate ignorance, they are also incredibly naive. The very thought that 19 lightly armed, minimally trained airplane hijackers could penetrate so easily the most powerful war mongering nation in the world is abhorrently repulsive to many Americans. Hence, the reason for a multitude of possible explanations other than it was what it was!

    Bang on as usual, Fred.


  14. One more thing. The fact that you can’t figure out how the buildings could have been brought down be demolition without it taking an enormous amount of time and without vast quantities of explosives is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as personal incredulity.

  15. Leon says:
    @C. S. P. Schofield

    No one has ever said that FDR planned Pearl Harbor. It is however a proven fact that he did use Pearl Harbor as bait and he prevented the Commanders at Pearl from properly defending the base and island.

    • Agree: fnn
  16. Adrian E. says:

    I think that while people can come to different conclusions about what most likely happened, we should try to get towards agreement about the principles according to which the plausibility of different explanations is judged.

    What happened on 9/11 was in any case strange, something that does not happen regularly.

    But it was strange and unusual in any case, whether you believe it was Al Qaeda with some Saudi support (probably mostly unofficial, but supposedly with the involvement of some high-ranking people), but no US or Israeli support or whether it was an inside job. The main task should be to flesh out different scenarios about what happened and then to judge how much the known facts fit these different scenarios. What we should NOT do, but what many people on different sides in this debate do unfortunately is pointing out difficulties with matching the known facts with one scenario and then assuming that these difficulties mean that another one of the scenarios should be accepted by default, without assessing whether there are problems with matching the facts with this other scenario as well.

    This is done by „truthers“ who just point out some legitimate oddities with matching the facts with the official explanation, ignoring that with their explanation if fleshed out properly, there would be oddities, as well. It is also done by anti-conspiracy-theorists who point out some weaknesses with certain inside job explanations and then proceed to claim that this means that the official story should be accepted as correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

    I think that on the whole, the official explanation is relatively plausible – certainly, there are some strange things, but alternative accounts tend to have difficulties with more odd facts. On the other hand, the situation is far from clear and we should keep an open mind. While, according to my assessment, there is no alternative explanation that clearly matches the known facts better than the official story, but that does not mean that a better alternative explanation and facts that support it might not be found in the future.

    One important point mentioned in the article is WTC7. It may indeed by seen as strange that it collapsed because of the fire. But if the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions and the planes were just used as a distraction (meant to be seen as the cause of the collapse), we should assume that there would have been meticulous planning to make sure that exactly those buildings that are hit by planes would collapse. Of course, many things are theoretically possible, e.g. that it was planned that another plane would hit WTC7 and that this did not work out and in order for the explosives at WTC7 not to be discovered, it was decided that it should be demolished, anyway. But in any case, while the collapse of WTC7 is somewhat strange for the official explanation, it is even more strange for inside job explanations. Why take this extraordinary effort with planes and suicide pilots in order to distract from the explosives, which are the real reason for the collapse according to this explanation, and then still blow up buildings that were not hit by a plane alongside others that were?

    Another important point is that, no matter to what conclusion we (or experts) come as to the amount of explosives that would have been needed, just considering this question diminishes the plausibility of inside job explanations somewhat. If a large quantity of explosives would have been needed, there is the question how they could have been placed there without anyone becoming suspicious. If it was only small amounts, it might well be that Al Qaeda was responsible for these explosives, at well.

  17. Leon says:

    All the article proves is that traditional explosives could not have been used.

    More ridiculous than the Truthers is the notion that jet fuel could make its way down into the sub basement and melt granite. The first Fema team had people on it who said that no plane could have caused the damage they saw but hey nothing to look at here so move along tools.

  18. John12755 says:

    At last! Pure common sense re 9/11!

  19. @Adrian E.

    I ran out of any more [Thanks] responses for a while, so,

    Great comment, Adrian!

  20. Fred Reed’s calculations strongly suggest that standard demolition techniques could not have been used to bring down buildings 1 and 2.

    Gordon Duff at Veterans Today makes a good case for mini nukes going off in the basements of 1 and 2. VT’s theory explains the fires that lasted two months, and other strange aspects of the horrific event.

    The huge jets needed pilots that could fly by instruments. But the alleged highjackers had trouble learning how to fly Cessnas by line of sight. It was obvious from day 1 that the highjackers could not possibly have flown the jets that hit 1 and 2 and the Pentagon. The official story deflates, on this flaw. The fact that the members of the US Congress at the time accepted the story is a disgrace.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  21. @Colin Wright


    .and it all went off as planned.

    Not really. Flight 93 was obviously supposed to return and hit Building 7, which, like the Twin Towers had been previously wired for controlled demolition. Planes hitting the buildings were a diversion that worked as planned.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @bjondo
  22. fredy, this ‘thing’ took place some 20 years ago, so let bygones be bygones. you need to focus on current, burning issues. e.g. how can gentiles recapture the butter business which is being dominated by the elders?

    • Replies: @Saba
  23. bjondo says:

    You were saying something about bldg 7. Continue since it did free-fall
    without a hard breath from Lucky Larry.

    Are you one of the appointed who comes out every 5 years and
    regurgitate time-wasting, discredited BS? Ask time wasting BS?

    Other tall buildings brought down by explosives or
    hijacked planes and warm smoke? And Arabs not involved.

    9-11 and anthrax part of same plot, neither involved Arabs.

    Just ten days after the events of 9-11, the FBI admitted that the IDs used by the perpetrators were high-quality fakes using identities stolen from Arab men. FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft. Mueller admitted on CNN on September 20 and 27 that the FBI had no proof of the identities of the men actually on board the airplanes.

    Who are Drs Phillip Zack and Barbara Rosenberg?

    Truthers or liars?

    Who you with?


  24. Well, okay. Once more unto the breach . . .

    Building 7 is a little easier, but the Twin Towers also have problems with excessive heat for one. Some of the structural steel was evaporated. Think about that. Not melted, evaporated. Also, concrete was melted. This implies much higher temperatures than can be attributed to jet fuel. Jet fuel can’t melt steed, yet we have melted steel. We also have evaporated steel AND melted concrete.

    No explanation.

    This was designed to look like a progressive collapse driven by gravity. There are problems however.

    It wasn’t just nanothermite. There were large structural pieces accelerated laterally to over 60 mph in less than a second. This is what people would call “explosive acceleration” caused by some sort of Dirac Impulse (Delta) function.

    In a normal gravity driven collapse, there would be a mound at the base several stories high and the core columns would likely be sticking out of it since they were the strongest structural component of the building. In this case, however, the “collapse” goes all the way to the ground level (and even below) with no appreciable rubble mound (or core columns) shown in the video/photographic evidence.

    How it happened:

    There was an elevator upgrade going on for several months prior to the incident, which gave access to the core columns.

    It is believed that the core was cut in the basement with a massive explosion
    (eyewitness testimony) then the plane hit (audio recording), then the progressive demolition was triggered.

    One of the people heading the security firm in charge of the buildings was Neil Bush (where Bush comes in).

    All the physical evidence was gathered up and destroyed, which is pretty much the definition of a coverup. However, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

    • Replies: @The Healthy Skeptic
  25. bjondo says:
    @Carroll Price

    Crashing planes, city-covering clouds of smoke and pulverized concrete,
    collapsing buildings, victims running, jumping, 24 hour loop, provided a spectacular,
    mesmerizing, shocking, sickening, vengeance-creating, show.

    Rottenwood jealous.


  26. Marc SC says:

    I could go to Fox news or CNN if I wanted to read opinions like this, this guy is such a total establishment hack, not alternative in any way at all. Not sure why you insist on posting his stuff on this otherwise excellent site.
    Just because your straw man argument about a MDE claims that he couldn’t do it does NOT validate the official story. I don’t know exactly what happened on 9/11, but can say this, a plane crash and jet fuel can not bring down steel reinforced skyscrapers alone, fires could not have caused building 7 to collapse. The official story has too much holes in it to be believable and the 9/11 commission investigation was intentionally botched and now much evidence is gone, we will likely never know the exact details of what happened.

  27. SafeNow says:

    Regarding how much explosive would be needed to sever a girder, there is no need to speculate, as the essay does; we can simply ask Danny Jowenko, the building-demolition expert. But wait — Mr. Jowenko, right after he went public to explain how these were demolitions, died mysteriously in a car crash. (Hereinafter DMCC). So, due to the DMCC, we cannot ask him, or anyone comparably convincing, as he might fear a DMCC.

  28. I would say there is widespread misunderstanding of the layers of complexity in Fred’s writing. Nobody knows for sure what happened on September 11, everything is educated guesswork and conjecture. It is absolutely fine to question the Truther narrative because the truth can stand up to questioning and in the end it is all that will be left standing. It is stupid to protect the Truther narrative the way the state protects the Official narrative. But if you can’t defend your idea of what happened with logic and facts, or even an interesting story, and the best you can come up with is a personal attack on Fred, there is no reason to read what you have to say. And you miss the larger point. Fred is trolling you. Most likely he is laughing his head off at your silly overreactions and knocking back a shot of tequila for every stupid ad hominem directed his way.

    This is illustrative of a larger problem I have noticed in many of the commenters here at Unz. Many lack the sophistication to understand that the Unz Review is a clearing house for opinion, and various opinions are herein expressed, even opinions sometimes at odds with each other. No matter that there is 90% agreement with a writer’s article, a commenter will violently jump on the 10% of disagreement using the foulest over-the-top terms, attacking the writer and even the writer’s family, you know who you are.

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @utu
  29. Biff says:

    Fred does know how to stir the pot, and get the natives dancing and yelping.

    There’s a reason that the MSM will not ever show those buildings coming down again – controlled demolition is blatantly obvious.

  30. niko says:

    to add a bit to some of the good comments above….each floor of offices will have a drop ceiling with 4-8 feet of height with in that ceiling space alone….with cat walks or crawls along the entire perimeter of the outer walls and around the perimeter of the central column and with catwalks between….hvac,telecom,electrical and other maintenance can be performed in this space during regular business hours with little noise from with in that space….you would have close enough contact to all structual steel with in those spaces….usually notice is given to offices prior to maintenance or work being done in the ceiling cavities above said space….depending on the substances that were used in the towers you could have a crew of 6 in an 8 hour shift set up each floor in around 1-3 days much depends on what type of system is used….all workers and material would be using only service elevators….you could have different crews working 24/7….difficulties would be acquiring those types and quantities of the substances and setting up your system before installation….to acquire those types of materials in such quantities without raising flags our ‘powers that be’ would have to have been involved….engineering wise, those steel cages that made up all 3 of those buildings could not have collapsed as they did from large airplanes crashing into them….look at the example of the Belgrade Tower building bombed multiple times at the upper floors with cruise missles in 1999, was on fire i believe for a few days and those folks were able to patch her up and are still using the building to this day….steel caged high rises can only collapse straight down by engineered demolition….they could tip over sideways if hit low with enough force but not straight down, it is theoritically impossible (even if five planes had crashed into those same spots at the same time)….so math wise each crew of 6 showing up to work in 2 full sized vans or box trucks with pallets of ‘jobsite’ material can then forklift their material( of up to 2 tons at the very least per shift) straight into the service elevator and to whatever floor they may be working on that day….say they are well organized and each crew can do one floor in one day….with 3 crews you could finish each tower in about a month….it is possible material wise and labor wise to set this up in a couple months….interesting is the change in who ran the operations of the buildings just in that same year of 2001, the Silverstein Group….they took out a 99 year lease from the port authority….interesting to say the least….so in conclusion engineered demolition, no other way is possible no matter what math you choose to do.

    • Replies: @DO
  31. Seems Fred Reed – cackling over supposed ‘lack of access by Mossad’ to plant the explosives for 9-11 – has not consulted the New York Times to read about the ‘Israeli art students’ who, shortly before the 9-11 towers demolition, worked for quite a while inside the utility areas of the NYC World Trade Centre towers on their ‘art student’ project

    These Israeli ‘students’ covered by the New York Times, were shown in photos with a stack of cardboard boxes, the factory code markings on the boxes later traced as referencing components of bomb detonators

    And then there’s what former President of Italy Francesco Cossiga confirmed, as being well-known by European governments

  32. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Reed periodically (re)writes a column like this, caricaturing and then mocking those who don’t accept the Establishment narrative. See, e.g., April 10, 2019. He comments as “Fred V. Reed” under other authors’ work, but seldom (ever?) his own. A bylined troll.

    Why, Mr. Reed, do you bother to demean “conspiracy theorists” and “Truthers” if you’re not willing to engage in good faith what they have to say?

    A. deadline pressure
    B. still have boxes of aging books in the garage
    C. feeling ignored
    D. just like to rile
    E. tool

  33. Mr. Reed, on the question of 9-11 at least, you are an ignoramus.

  34. Gordian knot time for Fredo. Hashing and re-hashing the demolition of the towers will result in a tower of babble (pun) but considering peripheral questions might gain some support for debunking of the official story-line.

    1) Four out of four airliners successfully hijacked with box-cutters. That in itself challenges credulity if one remembers how sloppy and tragic high-jackings were in the 1970’s heyday when they actually used guns and bombs.

    2) No immediate interception by fighters allowing the flying beer cans essentially air superiority for almost 2 hours in the most defended air space in the world. Look up the Stewart Payne lear jet tragedy to see how things normally proceeded. I also remember in the earlier news reports mention of transponders being turned off which convinced all the zombies that all the planes were now invisible. They could track no transponder bombing formations in WW2 but like with the moon landings we can’t do it anymore.

    3) Anthrax. This has effectively gone down the memory hole but at the time was directly linked to the 9/11 attack. I suppose when they eventually traced it to US Army labs and in the end an accused non Saudi committed suicide the news and linkage died with him.

    There are more curiosities but these should be enough to get Fred to maybe tackle another 9/11 article. My favorite would be 2). On the day after 9/11 my first moment of clarity came when I heard about the freewheeling trajectories of all the airliners. To me, a minor aeronautics buff, this seemed preposterous. Little did I know how convoluted the story-line would actually become.

    Full truth through majority consensus based on irrefutable facts about 9/11 just as with the JFK assassination will never happen. If it did, the US must necessarily cease to exist.


  35. BuelahMan says:

    Uncle Fred will spout on and on about math and physics, as if he were a mathematician or a physicist. But there are thousands of mathematicians and physicists that will argue with Uncle Fred.

    It also seems that there isn’t a jew he doesn’t love to protect, even the mossad jews.

    I dunno, Unc. Maybe you should stick to protecting the Mex.

  36. bjondo says:
    @Weston Waroda

    A lot is known regarding the 9-11 states attacks.

    #1 is the official narratives (towers and anthrax) are obvious BS.
    (the videos are clear. the lies are obvious.)

    Most responses here are intelligent and try to explain.
    Repetition is tiresome. Perps hope for a weakening of will.

    What would Reed’s purpose be to troll?


    • Replies: @Weston Waroda
  37. Tom Verso says:

    Laurent Guyenot, in his book “50 Years of deep state (A Deep History of the Last Fifty Years)…
    Explores a number of hypotheses about the cause of the collapse of WTC buildings. An interesting one that he develops in some detail is ‘mini apple size nuclear devices’.

    I hasten to add, Guyenot makes a presentation of the hypothesis, which is not to say he thinks it is true.

    Rather, a scientific hypothesis attempts to posit logically plausible explanations of the observable facts. For the hypothesis to be true it must be consistent with and verified by all the facts. Guyenot simply presents the ‘nuc hypothesis’ for the reader’s consideration along with the many others that can be found in the literature.

    To my mind, the ‘nuc hypothesis’ does meet the test of explaining many of the observable facts about the collapse of the buildings. Nevertheless, it would have to be test against other facts.

    Personally, I found Guyenot an excellent scholar and very logical thinker. I stopped read 9/11 works long ago out of sheer exhaustion. But, having come across references to him on various subjects I was motivated to read his book. I found it to be not only scholarly and logical but exceedingly well written. “A good read” … as they say.

    Finally, I should say, the scientific logical rigor of Guyenot and many other ‘Truthers’ stand juxtaposed to Fred Reed’s witty albeit silly high school essay logic.

  38. macilrae says:

    Let us assume that each column segment would require ten pounds of nanothermite. Thus a single floor would require 2,360 pounds or 1.18 tons. All 110 floors would then require 129.8 tons. We may guess, without really knowing, that several eighteen-wheelers would bring this from wherever Mossad gets its nanothermite.

    I’m sure that would definitely get the job done but even to a non-demolition expert it sounds like a bit of overkill.

    I assume that if we wade through the many links thoughtfully provided here we shall be able to find an assessment by a true professional as to what would be needed and how it could be accomplished? A sort of demolition “Red Adair”. If not, could somebody provide one?

    Fred’s popularity comes from his audacity and people here who set upon him with ad hominem jibes don’t seem to realize how they’re exposing their own redirected self-dissatisfaction.

    Let audacity thrive!

    • Replies: @Winter Watch
  39. nsa says:

    Whaddabout WTC7, Senor Freddie? Some wisps of smoke exit a few windows and then down it goes….a waste basket fire brought down WTC7?

  40. @Si1ver1ock

    Dr Judy Wood’s forensic evaluation of the pulverization of the twin towers and their complete contents into dust is likely what got her name banned from wikipedia. It certainly was very considerate of Buildings 1,2, and 7 to not topple onto their neighbors as they free-fell into the path of most resistance.

  41. Uncle Al says: • Website

    The obvious answer is each plane’s nose radar being replaced by a (TOP SECRET/Lotus Eater) zolo-ray projector. The Elbonian conspiracy and its execution are now exposed and inarguable.

  42. onebornfree says: • Website

    Dear Fred, 9/11 Conspiracy theory in 5 minutes:

    “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory”

    Regards, onebornfree

  43. @Adrian E.

    One important point mentioned in the article is WTC7. It may indeed by seen as strange that it collapsed because of the fire. But if the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions and the planes were just used as a distraction (meant to be seen as the cause of the collapse), we should assume that there would have been meticulous planning to make sure that exactly those buildings that are hit by planes would collapse. Of course, many things are theoretically possible, e.g. that it was planned that another plane would hit WTC7 and that this did not work out and in order for the explosives at WTC7 not to be discovered, it was decided that it should be demolished, anyway. But in any case, while the collapse of WTC7 is somewhat strange for the official explanation, it is even more strange for inside job explanations. Why take this extraordinary effort with planes and suicide pilots in order to distract from the explosives, which are the real reason for the collapse according to this explanation, and then still blow up buildings that were not hit by a plane alongside others that were?

    Your tentative explanations for WTC7 are good, but there is another. The bottom line of Fred’s questioning is that, when you do an inside job, you have to plan it carefully and avoid adding any unnecessary acts that would pierce holes in your explanation. That’s where he is wrong. The fact that the destruction of WTC7 seems to be a failure in planning, or an unnecessary act, adds an apparent inconsistency into the ‘inside job’ explanation. Considering that the official explanation has many uncertainties, and was bound to be doubted anyway, inserting a hole in alternative explanations is highly advantageous, even at the cost of enlarging the already existing hole of the official explanation. The gain is bigger than the loss.

    In other words: if it seemed so illogical to blow WTC7, why would they do it? Answer: precisely because of that.

  44. @Adrian E.

    This is a sensible approach to looking at this episode. LIke Peter Dale Scott’s book on the JFK assassination -focus on what the effects are and what is the interconnection between various knots of players proven o presumed to be involed on various levels. It’s a multidimensional approach. The whole affair has such a dense cloud of carefully cultivated and maintained emotion around it, it’s difficult even to get a handful of Truthers to agree on a specific scenario. And the guys at the head office are OK with that.

  45. Cowboy says:

    Here’s Fred trying to get back in the US.

  46. It is not necessary to explain HOW it happened. It is only necessary to explain WHAT happened.

    And WHAT happened is that the buildings, and everything inside the buildings disintegrated into fine dust, except for a very small portion. Tens of thousands of filing cabinets all disappeared. Only 1 was ever found, crinkled up as though it were in a microwave. Steel beams were observed disintegrating in midair. People were taking off their clothes and hanging outside the building, as though whatever was in the building was more dangerous to them than the 800 foot fall.

    So any speculation of HOW is irrelevant. It’s clear and obvious that many technologies were used, some of them not known to the public. Laurent Guyenot suggests apple sized nukes. Possible, but again, speculation. And that wouldn’t account for the apparent microwaving of people prior to the disintegration of the buildings.

    My own theory is that multiple weapons were employed, including nanathermite, mini nukes, and some other unknown technologies. But again, HOW is not relevant. We only need to know that the WTC complex was deliberately destroyed, and we need to confirm by whom.

    An interesting video is linked below. If you watch the steel beams you can see them start out with sharp edges, which slowly melt and then disintegrate into dust. I can’t imagine how this was done. But it does convince me what happened.

  47. re bldg 7
    Larry Silverstein gave an order to “pull it”.
    And as others have noted he wasn’t saying his finger.
    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth recently published their
    4 year study (finite element analysis Univ of Alaska) proving bldg 7 collapsed
    via demolition. The tech report is long and tedious but flawless.

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
  48. “Foucault’s Pendulum” by Umberto Eco, now with impromptu forward by Fred Reed. Start with a faulty premise, then use more faulty premises to support it. Rinse / repeat until the preponderance of resulting evidence beats the truth so soundly that it never dares to raise its shamed gaze in public ever again.

    Anything imaginable, and physically possible, can be done by anyone given adequate willpower and time to do it. The probability of success for each attempt is inversely proportional to the amount of resources dedicated to preventing that thing from being done. In the case of the towers, there were fewer resources dedicated to preventing mischief than one would expect at, say, a bank. Do you believe no one ever gets around banking security resources?

    That said, you’re probably right about the two big towers, but not because of any reason you cited.

    As for ‘inside jobs’, don’t forget that intelligence services allowing the ‘turrists’ to get as far as we’re told they did counts as strong evidence of an inside job. If a bank security guard decides to allow known robbers into the bank, or to leave a bank robbery with the stolen money, that guard will go to prison. All We The People got, justice-wise, was 18 years of war and a Saudi magnate’s sick and dying son shot in his skivvies (ow!), then dumped into the sea.

    Basic police work starts with Cui Bono. Who benefits. Halliburton benefited quite a bit. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before accepting the vice presidency, and in that role spoke openly about the need to get around Afghanistan’s (and Iraq’s) governance. That’s premeditation. I could get an indictment past an honest grand jury with nothing more than publicly available evidence.

  49. Truth3 says:

    Fred is so full of BS that his name needs to be changed to Gatekeeper Fred the Possum Piss King. Fred, you ain’t no engineer, or mathematician, or physicist, so shut the F up.

    First of all, no charges were needed on the exterior steelwork. The main structural loads were borne by the center column system. The column system was insanely strong in compression… the resistance of vertical loads. You cannot crush the steel columns even with a number of towers mass… they needed to be cut in elemental fashion…and in so doing elimate the structural resistance to collapse. The factors of safety here were not inconsiderable.

    Second of all, structures in collapse expend their gravitational potential energy in structural resistance and deformation. What was needed was charges on the key points of the CENTRAL column system to sequentally destroy the ability of the columns to resist collapse. This was actually quite easy… columns cut in sequence allow a continual collapse. Without cutting them, there would have been no collapse.

    Who else but Mossad would do this Freddie? Oh yeah, I forgot, you are a genius that can hypothesize the stupid to deflect from the truth. Better you just keep your trap shut and go write for a Mexican fish-wrapper.

  50. ruralguy says:

    The NIST led a study of this, using 200 technical experts including 125 leading experts. They reviewed tens of thousands of documents and 7,000 segments of video and an equal number of photographs, interviewed more than 1,000 people, and analyzed 236 pieces of steel. Their laboratory tests indicate the steel did not melt, in contradiction to the claims that others have posted on this site. The temperature generated by the burning of the jet fuel was sufficient to weaken the structural steel to 10% of its original strength, though.

    We should defer to these 200 experts in mechanical engineering and demolitions. They know the science. They have examined the evidence.

    • LOL: NoseytheDuke
    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  51. Fred,

    As you have come to learn over many years at home and abroad the continuously, constipated and conspiratorially Americans who cultivate ignorance cannot help themselves in developing all sorts of scenarios relative to 9/11.

    In the meantime, please keep your insightful cards and letters coming!


  52. Don Tyler says:

    “The point is that a theory should be physically plausible.”

    That assumes you know all that is physically possible so as to be plausible

    So what you are saying is a theory must fit with what you think you know

    So the box you put it in can only be as big as the box you know, otherwise it is not physically plausible.

    Just a bit of circular reasoning

    What happened to building #7 fits with controlled demolition but that does not work for you because of what you think you know

    We have theories about how a bird flies but it does not change the fact it does fly

    And what ever theory one advances for the collapse of building #7 does not change the fact it collapsed exactly like what is observed with a controlled demolition.

    That is an inescapable point

  53. dearieme says:
    @fool's paradise

    the official explanation, that jet fuel was hot enough to melt the steel columns

    I find it hard to believe that the official explanation could be quite so stupid. Could you quote verbatim what the official view is, please?

    • Replies: @tanabear
  54. dearieme says:

    Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel,

    What on earth makes you think it needed to?

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  55. Muggles says:

    I don’t always agree w/ Fred but this time I do. The supposed Truthers mostly share nothing but a health skepticism for government explanations. That is a good thing. But it isn’t some automatic mechanism to finding the “real truth.” Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Most Truther explanations require the (nano) thermite “evidence” but it is hardly conclusive. As Fred notes placement of explosives (some absurdly posit nukes in the basement, gee, I thought those gave off easily detectable radiation?) would have been a laborious and noticeable task.

    Various crazy theories never explain how the aircraft managed to crash into the buildings just as the “thermite” is detonated. No one argues that planes did crash in all of those places. Yet the Smoke and Mirrors explainers have no problem imagining that away.

    Occam’s Razor comes to mind. Why would any conspiracy be so complicated and multi faceted? Laying out all of the needed bits and pieces would be ridiculously complicated. Motive? If Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan, surely easier plots would have worked just as well. And complicated plots involving dozens of people (not killed of course) would by now resulted in many leaks, memoirs, confessions, etc. Yet these are lacking. These aren’t Lone Nut theories are they?

    You don’t have to believe in the Government to reject Truther nonsense. Just the obvious. For some reason some folks like hidden hands and “secret knowledge.” Probably a psychological issue. Thanks Fred.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  56. In the mysteriously continuing hoorawhaw over whether the Twin Towers were brought down by an “inside job,”I have often ignited the fury of the extraordinarily sensitive Truthers, who believe in intentional demolition,. My sin was pointing out that demolition is a physical undertaking. It is not metaphorical. Physical explosives in specific quantities must be put in actual places. If it cannot be shown that this would be physically possible, an inside job did not happen.

    Once again, Fred proves true the saying: You just can’t fix stupid.

    Over the years, a favorite “argument” of silly deranged “debunkers” like Fred is: if you can’t tell me HOW it was done, then you MUST believe the OFFICIAL story. Another parallel line of the lunatic “debunkers” is: if you can’t tell me WHO did it, then you MUST believe the OFFICIAL story.

    In this way, creepy debunkers like Fred can ignore the laws of physics.

    Freddie. Large steel structures simply do not come down that way from a couple of minor plane crashes (which they were specifically built to withstand) in their upper stories. In less than an hour.

    In other words, by the laws of physics and engineering the OFFICIAL story CANNOT be true.

    After Fred’s first paragraph (above), I stopped reading. There is no point in reading a single word this idiot says about 9-11. Keep it up, Fred. Pero te vuelves loco.

  57. tanabear says:

    They may suggest a means of destruction that I have never heard of. The point is that a theory should be physically plausible.

    The 9/11 Truth Movement is trying to accomplish two things broadly speaking.

    1) Demonstrate that the official account of 9/11 is false and incomplete.
    2) Provide an alternate explanation as to what happened and ultimately truth and justice.

    The first goal has been achieved. The official account is verifiably false on almost every single level. The second goal cannot really be accomplished unless there is a new/real investigation into 9/11. Now, almost all the effort of 9/11 Truth has gone into the first goal, very little into the second. The idea is that if you demonstrate the falsity of the official story, then 9/11 is an open case and the need for an investigation proceeds.

    This is how the Innocence Project works: “We exonerate the innocent through DNA testing...” If they show that a person did not commit a crime then the wrongfully convicted can be set free, but they are under no obligation to say who did it before the convict is released.

    In other words, you can show something to be false without necessarily knowing what is true. If someone was arrested because there was a claim that Jimmy Hoffa was buried in his basement, but then it turned out there was no such evidence for a claim. The accused is under no obligation to say what happened to Jimmy Hoffa before he can be set free. The burden of proof is on the government body making the claim.

    The official story of 9/11 is false. Now there can be a million different explanations from the ridiculous to the sublime about what actually happened that day. They can be contradictory, absurd and completely full of nonsense. None of this, however, validates the official story. There can be a million different stories of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa but none of these stories makes a false claim(Jimmy Hoffa is buried in your basement) true.

    Fred Reed needs to realize that the government’s story(crush-down crush-up) is not possible. The demolition explanation is possible.

    As Sherlock Holmes said to Watson, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.’

  58. @dearieme

    Because the claim is that Jet fuel caused fires so hot that they melted steel and concrete, and caused them to fuse together into an object they call “The Meteorite”

    • Thanks: Curmudgeon
    • Replies: @dearieme
  59. penryn says:

    This is just me speculating, but I’ll tell you how I would have done it. Look at these two pictures:
    My father near his office in the World Trade Center. 58th floor North Tower. April 1974. New York
    The pictures show that there were tile ceilings in the twin towers, and around 2 1/2 feet of accessible space above the tiles before the solid part of the next floor starts. I would have used a ladder to access the tile next to each column, moved the tile aside, attached the explosives/nanothermite to the area of the column inside the ceiling and then moved the tile back into place. I think a person could do a floor in 1-2 nights that way.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  60. @JoeKnowsPhils

    I have repeatedly told Gordon Duff, that Stephen Jones, who is a nuclear physicist and who tested the dust and found it to contain nanothermite, also checked for evidence of a nuclear explosion and found no evidence of a nuclear explosion. When there is a nuclear explosion, there are “daughter products” of the explosion that can be easily detected. Jones found none of these. Unless Duff thinks he can change physics, he is sadly mistaken in his conclusion.

    Furthermore, nanothermite is a much more difficult substance to make. We figured out how to make nuclear weapons in the 1940’s. The first patent on nanothermite was just a couple of years before 9/11.

    And one of the properties of nano-explosives is that they are far more powerful than explosives not made using nano-technology. Nano-particles are much more uniform and create a much faster ignition and a much more complete burn. So you can get much closer to the power of a nuclear reaction, without having the radiation created by a nuclear explosion.

    People like Gordon Duff are disinformationists, and disinformationists are the bane of the 9/11 truth movement. Disinformationists can genuinely believe they are right and sometimes know they are not and just want to create confusion.

    I have never tried to figure out “who done it.” There are so many possible suspects it is a rabbit hole fraught with danger.

    But I think it is absolutely clear that there were explosives used, because Jones and Harritt tested the dust and found them. They also found one other thing in the dust — iron microspheres — which incidentally, was also found in dust tested by the USGS. Iron microspheres are made the same way hail is made. Both substances begin as liquid and then freeze. Vaporized iron freezes similar to snow — into particles called dendrites. Jones and Harrit did not find any iron dendrites in the dust, meaning the iron only got hot enough to be a liquid and then freeze. The significance of this is that jet fuel will never get hot enough to melt steel and if the official theory were correct, there would never be any iron microspheres in the dust. And iron microspheres were found in the dust in numerous places by the USGS and in the dust Jones and Harritt tested.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
    , @Sparkon
  61. @davidgmillsatty

    One more thing. Thermite and nanothermite commonly produce iron microspheres.

  62. @ThereisaGod

    Buildings do not spontaneously collapse into their own footprints

    See, that’s where you truther-doods fall short. Like Achmed Newman said, I put nothing past them. But you truther-doods have to do BETTER than that. Ya know why? Because those buildings did not fall into their own footprint. They fell into a footprint many, many times the former occupancy of the originals, I don’t know WHERE you get the “original footprint” theory. It’s more idiotic than the “Single Bullet Theory” of the Kennedy assassination. I passed through there first of November 2001 and even after a month and a half of serious salvage, the debris field was three and six blocks and change OUT in every direction, including the water. So stop with your truther shit. Your story falls apart to people that visited the scene and know the landscape of Manhattan. 300,000 pounds of fuel incorporated into 800,000 pounds of airliners hitting the buildings at 500+MPH was plenty to fry the elements of those buildings into collapse. The rest was peripheral damage. Sorry.

    You don’t convince me.

  63. Rurik says:

    Like the BBC’s pre-reporting of the collapse of building seven, this is proof of foreknowledge.

    It’s exactly the same as if a news station reported on the first plane hitting the WTC towers minutes before it did.

    Anyone with a shred of brains or integrity, would want to know who wrote the report that a plane crashed into the towers, minutes before it did. Because a person with brains or integrity would want to ask them; ‘How did you know?’

    And that would be a salient question to ask Fox News or the BBC. How did you know?

    Did Osama call the television station and tell them what time the building would collapse?

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  64. @Jim Christian

    Analysis of the dust tells a different story. Quantatative and qualitative analysis of the dust shows that it contained nanothermites. Jones’ and Harritt’s paper proving this has been out since 2007 and has never been refuted.

    Those people who criticize the paper and claim to refute it will not do the true refutation — faithfully repeating the testing and come up with a different result. It is a red flag when they won’t risk reproducing the same result.

    The term footprint is a bit vague and perhaps not the most accurate term. What it essentially means is that the buildings did not topple over. Moreover, the rubble bears no resemblance to that of an earthquake demolished building either. A free fall collapse would have left a rubble pile far higher than it was. There are people who have figured out how much higher a pile from a gravitational collapse would have been, but it was years ago when I read that paper.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  65. Daddio7 says:

    Obviously this was done by Democrat operatives, everything Republicans try to do secretly leaks with in seconds, often at the speed of sound. There have been zero leaks from the demolition crew. If the shadow goverment can do this why worry about electing the right person, elections are meaningless.

  66. NotFooled says:

    The Master Baiter strikes again!
    Clicks abound!
    Ads galore are served!
    Ron is HAPPY.

    Well done Senõr Reed

  67. @NotFooled

    Just that I agreed does not mean I have any problem with all that. This site does have some seriously controversial subjects, and this may be the biggest (at least for a non-idealogical issue – well the happening was non-idealogical, anyway). I’d like for Mr. Unz’s site to reach the big-time, but that’s for the freedom of speech aspect and the writers that I think SHOULD be widely read. There are loads that I don’t agree with.

    But, yeah, Fred knows this one will get a number of comments toward the 4-digits. That’s not the case with his occasional non-political travelogues (Mexico and China) that I enjoy.

  68. amused says:
    @fool's paradise

    At least most intelligent commentators here kindly give old Fred the benefit of the doubt, being able to differentiate between toxic tribal shills and just plain old dills. Addled is addled though, and he should have the decency to ‘withdraw hurt’ from the debate. I’ve been known to go large myself when hitting the bottle on occasion but sadly have never been able to turn it into a lifetime achievement award. Perhaps if those buildings were clad with Fred’s liver they would still be standing 🙂

    • Agree: fool's paradise
  69. amused says:

    Apologies to all for the lack of clarity in those last comments of mine. My intention was not to make an ad hominem attack but to point out the obvious absurdity of trying to manifest quality reasoning when using an incapacitated and /or damaged tool. Stick to social commentary and chuckle inducing anecdotes Fred. It’s entertaining and something you are good at. Leave the logic to those who are ‘match fit’.

  70. @NotFooled

    Oops, now that I think about it, I don’t agree fully, as there aren’t any ads, right? (I don’t see any, anyway.) Still, clicks, hence page-views, are good.

  71. utu says:
    @Weston Waroda

    “Fred is trolling you.” – Exactly. He never argues in good faith, he does not care this way or another. He is utterly demoralized person, a nihilist of sort.

    • Replies: @Weston Waroda
  72. utu says:

    The most comprehensive finite element study of WTC 7 collapse was released in September 2019.

    A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

    A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – September 2017 Progress Report

    University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11

    “The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to a draft report released yesterday by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) following a four-year computer modeling study funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”

    “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video,” said Professor Hulsey. “We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on 9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17.”

    So what is the other possibility? Demolition! When the explosive charges were installed? According to Fred installing charges on 9/11 in one day would not be possible. Thus the charges had to be installed in the extended period before 9/11. Does this imply that WTC 1 and WTC2 also had charges installed for demolition? Yes, if WTC7 had charges installed so WTC1 and WTC2. Prof. Hulsey result in combination with Fred’s back of the envelope doodling math is the definitive scientific argument that 9/11 destruction was caused by demolition prepared ahead of time. Thank you Fred for your contribution.

  73. @davidgmillsatty

    It gets worse than that. The top section of WTC 1 had come completely free from the rest of the building, rotating and tilting 22 degrees. The NIST report confirms this.

    The towers were built with steel I-beams graduating in thickness as the floors were closer to the ground, 1″ thick beams at the top to 5″ thick at the bottom. So the resistance increased to prevent this top portion crushing anything.

    Once the top section began to tilt, no power on earth would have stopped this top section from tipping over and falling off the building. It could not possibly have crushed downward symmetrically.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @bjondo
    , @Yup
  74. @Jim Christian

    Photos below of WTC 7 before and after. The debris did not even spill across the street.

    Most people would consider that “sitting down into it’s own footprint”

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  75. gsjackson says:

    Well, if it was “incredibly structurally damaged by the goings-on next door” then of course it’s going to collapse in a couple of seconds into its own footprint. Oh but wait, Lucky Larry said they decided “to pull it.”

    Our Zio-masters must really get a chuckle out of the shit they’re able to get away with.

    What I wonder about is whether these media co-conspirators are useful idiots who have just wit enough to figure out what they can and can’t say, or are they actively in on the plans, or are they bribed or blackmailed like the pols? Maybe they fall into all three categories.

    I used to know one of them well — you’d know the name if you’re at all familiar with network news. I’d put him in the useful idiot category, though he was someone who could be susceptible to temptation of a carnal nature. He cuckolded one of his closest friends — the nicest guy in the world — while the friend was out of town ( he claimed that the wife seduced him). You’ve got to think Zion has a nose for such types and steers them into the clutches of the Jeffrey Epsteins.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  76. @macilrae

    Fred is ASSuming his father’s generation of explosives was used. If it was a form of nanothermite it was super enhanced, and wouldn’t require anywhere near 1.18 tons per floor. Nor would all 110 floors need to be blown.

  77. Because you bring it up Fred,I was the most prolific blogger on the internet after Christopher Bollyn,about Israelis guarding Logan Airport on 9/11.Gilad Atzmon’s relative Menachem Atzmon ,(he never explained whether he is a cousin or a brother or what),who had already benn convicted of money laundering in Israel for Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud Party in the 1990s was allowedd by the U.S. SEC, to incorporate ICTS International in Zionist Catholic Joe Biden’s state of Delaware in 1999 and Make so much money from American suckers,I mean investors,that he and now deceased Ezra Harel and Shin Beit agents were able to not only buy Huntleigh airport rent-a-cops and its’ contract to guard Logan Airport where according to the ‘official story’ flights 11 and 175 originated from in the first place. but probably even made enough pumping and dumping their ICTS International shares to futher enrich their own offshore money laundering accounts as a bonus to themselves for their good works.

    No I don’t believe those planes were capable of taking down the WTC but I always felt that Atzmon, should have been called to testify publicallybefore Congress.After W Buish and Dick Cheney and Biden and Nancy, all believed these PLANES GUARDED BY ATZMON ,ET.AL, BROUGHT THE WTC DOWN AS APPARENTLY YOU YOURSELF BELIEVE.
    I later blogged or posted on the old indymedias about Atzmon and ICTS International having direct ties to Richard Reid ‘the Islamic shoe bomber’ and having facilitated his trip to Israel aboard an El Al Airline flight from Schiphol Airport Amsterdam so he could visit his Hamas friends in the Gaza strip !

    And if that weren’t enough they allowed him to board an American Airlines flight from De Gualle Airport to the U.S. with his ‘shoe bomb’ which according to Israeli intelligence publication Debkra only a short while after 9/11 which according to Israeli intelligence publication Debkra he got on his Israeli facilitated trip to visit his Haas friends in the Gaza !

    On Christmas 2009,(ho,ho,ho), according to the Israeli Haaretz newspaper itself ICTS International which has controlled Amsterdam Schiphol Airport security for many years before 9/11,allowed if not encouraged Nigerian ‘crotch bomber’ Mutallab to board flight 253 to Detroit which was witnessed by two attorneys from Michigan who were boarding the same flight.
    Below is part of an article by Bollyn about meeting Gilad and their brief discussion about Menachem Atzmon,Logan Airport and 9/11 after a chance eeting on a lecture circuit tour that Gilad then posted on his own website as you can see below.

    The Jewish State and Gilad Atzmon
    DECEMBER 04, 2014 BY GILAD ATZMONY Christopher Bollyn

    I happened to meet Gilad Atzmon when our paths crossed in Portland, Oregon, in September. I had the chance to talk to him and wanted to ask him if he was related to Menachem Atzmon, the key Israeli defendant in the 9-11 tort litigation. Gilad was quick to answer and said that he is indeed related to Menachem Atzmon.

    Menachem Atzmon is a former Likud party co-treasurer who, along with Ehud Olmert was charged with illegal campaign financing in Israel. Although Atzmon had been working with Ehud Olmert, Atzmon was convicted while Olmert was not. Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem and prime minister, has since been convicted and sentenced to prison on other charges involving accepting illegal funds.

    Atzmon went on to head an Israeli security company called International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), which is based in Holland. ICTS happens to be the parent company of Huntleigh USA, the former American company that managed passenger screening operations at Boston’s Logan Airport on 9-11. ICTS was the key defendant in the 9-11 tort litigation but was excused from the process by a decision of the federal judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. It should be noted that there was a blatant conflict of interest in Judge Hellerstein’s management of the 9-11 tort litigation. While Judge Hellerstein was overseeing the tort litigation, his son, Joseph, was living in Israel (on an illegal settlement) and working in a law firm that represented the parent company of ICTS.

    Gilad not only confirmed that he was related to Menachem Atzmon, but added that he is also related to Nathan Friedman-Yellin (a.k.a. Nathan Yellin-Mor) the Zionist activist from Grodno who worked closely with Avraham Stern and migrated to Palestine in 1941 to found LEHI, the radical Jewish terrorist group also known as the Stern Gang………

  78. dearieme says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    But once the jet fuel had poured through the building presumably other materials would burn too. Are you certain that none of those could do what you describe?

    And need the steel melt to form that blob?

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  79. orionyx says:

    They say there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    Fred’s just used statistics to prove that controlled demolitions are all but impossible – too many people, too much explosives, too many vehicles to transport them, logistics too overwhelming, for the deed to get done.

    Now he’s going to need statistics to unprove what he’s just proved – not completely, but just enough to allow the verified controlled demolitions that take place every single day. Or are all those damned lies?

    When I saw 9-11 unfolding on the screen, I saw immediately that what was presented to us as fact was imply incredible; that therefore it was not done that way; and that there was a story behind it being deliberately hidden from us. I didn’t know how it was done, I didn’t know why it was done, I didn’t know who did it (but I knew it wasn’t 19 Arab patsies). But I knew the official story was simply bullshit.

    And so is this Reed screed.

  80. Fred ain’t stupid. This piece is an elaborate troll. Y’all have been had.

  81. @fool's paradise

    Here’s what Fred wants you to believe.
    “The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this…

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

    Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

    …Meanwhile down in Washington…

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…
    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…
    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building…
    …all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video…

    …Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana…

    …Further south in Florida…

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…

    …In New York…

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports…

    And if you don’t believe that, you’re a “conspiracy theorist”

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
    • LOL: gsjackson
    • Replies: @fool's paradise
  82. @Timur The Lame

    Respectfully, I’d like to address your points 1 and 2, Timur.

    A little bit about Air Traffic Control: The main job of the Air Route Centers and the TRACON facilities, Timur, is the almighty SEPARATION. This is the required separation, by the book, of all IRF (Iinstrument Flight Rules) traffic. PERIOD. Sure, with time on their hands they do their best to give better more direct routings, ride reports or suggestions, weather avoidance info, help out any VFR traffic talking to them with advisories and warnings, etc. However, this serious and sophisticated video game, played by those bright people in those dark rooms, is for the purpose of keeping IFR planes from hitting other IFR planes.

    There are emergencies, and the controllers are trained to give what help they can. As far as air defense goes, though, it was not these peoples’ job. They may be called “controllers”, so I think a lot of people erroneously think that they command planes to do this, do that, etc. (Yes, in the terminal area, there’s a lot of vectoring and speed control) The “controllers” are really there as a SERVICE to the operators of the aircraft in the system, though. They do everything they can, within their separation parameters, to honor requests for this or that, with the understanding that planes are meant to go fast and in a straight line, or people would just drive everywhere.

    What I’m getting at, is that, even today* it is not a military/defense mindset, this ATC business. It is a service industry, in my view. The idea that all the planes in the sky are just controlled, and if a plane just goes in a different direction for a while, the whole Air Force would be alerted, is bogus. I understand your wondering about things going on for “hours” (?), but it was a more relaxed mind-set back then. Nobody expected what happened that day, which brings me to another comment for you …


    * though there are plenty more procedures in place now for interacting with the military.

    • Replies: @foolisholdman
  83. @Timur The Lame

    I’m going backwards in order here, sorry. Let me get back to that “nobody expected” part. On the hijackings: I can specifically remember that before that date, the airlines told crew members (pilots and flight attendants) that what we do now (back then) is let hijackers get what they want. At least it was “work with them”. I can also remember that I personally thought this was the same “lie down and enjoy it” BS that potential rape victims might have been told (NOTE: UNARMED ones).

    Good judgement, just as with the rest of the flying business, was in order, as really some distraught homesick Cubans back in the day would be better dealt with that way. Work with them, possibly try to take the situation back, but just get the plane safely on the ground. One’s judgement would result in different actions were it those holdover ’60s radicals that wanted to wreak havoc. (There’s a great book, Timur, on the almost weekly hijackings that used to occur, but I’m sorry I can’t remember the title right now.)

    Yes, it was a stupid policy, but stupider was the one, even more enforced today, of disarming passengers.. The bad guys will always be able to use weapons, the TSA security theater notwithstanding.

    In the meantime, the flimsy cockpit door, if not left open, was easy to break down, and again, the crews were all told “let them have what they want!” I believe these planes could have been hijacked very easily. Let me continue with a comment on this general topic about the aviation aspect of 9/11..

  84. @dearieme

    Jet fuel does not “pour” in a crash. Jet fuel flashes.

    I was right beside this videographer when a B-52 drilled a hole in Spokane. The B-52 crashed right beside a wooden telephone pole, and it didn’t even scorch the pole, let alone light it on fire.

    So yes, I am certain of what I describe, and yes, both steel and concrete melted and fused together.

    There was a point in time when they had the meteorite on semi public display. They no longer do so, since it destroys the fantasies about the building “collapsing”.

  85. @Timur The Lame

    On the whole “no airplanes” theory, well, there’s just no way I can believe that one. If other readers then would at least agree with me on that, then. I don’t really understand why the whole airplane drama would be put in place at all as a cover story for the purposeful demolition of the buildings.

    I don’t think you’d find too many Deep State types, Israelis, or whoever, to fly suicide missions. If you were to put the fake blame on those 19 Moslems, most of them Saudi’s, why not have made them Iraqi’s or Taliban, since 9/11 seemed to be the pretext for starting the 2 wars?

    As at least one commenter wrote already, why have this drama about the airplanes, anyway? Would it not be better to have just pinned the blame on a group of guys with explosives in the basement or parking structure? After all, that was already done, in 1993, 8 1/2 years earlier, with 6 killed and and many dozens seriously injured (some trauma from the blast and some from smoke inhalation). Or, was this a Deep State job too? (I’m not being snide, just asking what others think.)

    I’m not trying to argue on the whole big picture, Timur I just have not read or seen video of anything convincing me that some airliners couldn’t have been hijacked to fly into NYC.


    I’m going back a bit, but I meant to address your transponder question. Yes, there is primary radar, as in returns from the metal on the airplanes. It is not reliable with the modern radar, or at least they are not set up to do very much with that. With primary returns, there is no altitude information (and, of course, no ID data), so a primary return could be any small plane in the area talking to nobody on the radio. It could be a flock of geese. With your transponder off, you’re just not a very good piece of traffic to be kept track of nowadays – I’m talking about the civilian ATC system – I don’t know much about the military stuff.

    • Replies: @Vetran
  86. @Muggles

    Occam’s Razor comes to mind.

    For starters, you are using a concept which originally refers to natural events as opposed to human ones. So, extra care is required.

    Why would any conspiracy be so complicated and multi faceted?

    Please note that the official explanation is itself a conspiracy theory. So, it all boils down to accepting or rejecting a particular conspiracy theory, which in itself is pretty complicated and multi-faceted. One doesn’t have to know exactly what alternative conspiracy actually took place to reject the official one (though several alternative theories strike me as more plausible than the official one).

    Believing what the government tells you is in fact simpler and thus it may be a kind of behavioral ‘Occam’s Razor’, but it certainly is not a scientific one.

  87. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    This just in:

    There were no “WTC2 top of tower tilt ” photos captured “live” by any particular “heroic photographer” on 9/11. [Nor videos, for that matter.]

    The “photo “you posted is a fake, made on a Computer. A similar photo by one “award winning” “Amy Sancetta” is also 100% fake, as are all similar images.[There are quite a few 😏]

    See:”9/11 Scams: The Faked “Award Winning” Amy Sancetta WTC2 “Tilt” Photo + Clones”:

    Regards, onebornfree

  88. @onebornfree

    Really? Is that so?

    You’d best tell that to NIST. Because they refer to the top section as follows:

    QUOTE The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four
    faces; not only the bowed and buckled East face) to the East (about 7º to 8º) and South (about
    3º to 4º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the East wall along the adjacent North
    and South walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the East as it began
    to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees. END QUOTE

    You can also explain that to A&E911, as they hosted that photo. But what would 3,275 Architects and Structural Engineers know compared to one man’s blog?

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  89. Sparkon says:

    A note for Fred Reed, davidgmillsatty, and Ron Unz:

    Thermite, nanothermite, thermate etc. are NOT explosives, period. They are incendiaries used to CUT but not destroy steel.

    Since there was a lot of cutting going on during the destruction of evidence by Mayor Giuliani’s crews after 9/11, it should be no surprise, really, that some thermite might have been found after the fact in WTC dust, but these incendiaries do not have the explosive force to account for the destruction of the WTC. Period.

    In the past, I’ve posted long and hard here at UR on the thermite issue. Do yourself a favor and read my past comments, or go to one of my original sources, and read all about it here:

    Because there were no debris heaps where they had stood, WTC 1 and WTC 2 (the Twin Towers) did not fall into their own footprints, but WTC 7 did fall into its own footprint, which is not a vague term, at all. The debris from the Twin Towers was blown far and wide all over the WTC complex and onto adjacent properties, damaging some of these neighboring buildings so that at least one (Deutsche Bank) had to be torn down after the fact due to contamination by toxic dust.

    The Twin Towers had a different type of construction than did Bldg. 7. In WTC 1 & 2, both the external steel cage and the internal steel core columns provided support for the structures in a novel “tube within a tube” design. WTC 7, by contrast, was a standard steel-framed high rise.

    As the buildings had different types of construction, and varied greatly in height, it should be no great surprise that different methods of demolition were used for the Twin Towers on 9/11 as compared to Bldg. 7.

    Since the Twin Towers were so tall, it makes sense that they were destroyed from the top down to avoid the possibility of one or both of the big buildings tipping over during demolition, and you wouldn’t want that for obvious reasons.

    The only viable theory which comports with all the known facts is that the Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down by some very powerful force capable of turning to dust much of the towers and most of their contents, and additionally ejecting some of that material for 100s of feet, as was the with the external box column section that was hurled into the Winter Garden Atrium.

    You cannot do that with an incendiary.

    You can expect the “nukes in the basement” crowd to make an appearance here, but any underground nukes would have left huge craters beneath the Twins, and there were no such craters.

    One reason is there was a lot of gold being stored beneath the WTC in special vaults. Mayor Giuliani led a team of police and firemen during a publicized recovery operation where $230 million in gold bars was recovered from vaults owned or operated by the Bank of Nova Scotia. Despite that, the bank reported a $200 million loss from 9/11. That same day, Mayor Giuliani was notified was was being made a Knight by her royal majesty, the Queen of Blighty.

    Additionally, the will of Ferdinand Marcos specified that $20 billion in gold bars was being stored beneath the WTC in perpetuity for the benefit of the Filipino people.

    According to a big-time hood, Bush and company organized 9/11 not only to justify perpetual wars of aggression in the ME, but also to get their hands on all that gold stored beneath the WTC in a saga that reads oddly parallel to the story of the Knights Templar digging for gold and buried secrets beneath King Solomon’s Temple.

  90. izzy says:

    Well, the Navy officially released a story earlier this year concerning the so-called TicTac ufo encounter, wherein the observed object was doing something considered physically impossible.
    “There is more under heaven and earth, Horatio…”

    And the University of Alaska also released a comprehensive engineering report last fall concluding that Building 7 came down from the simultaneous failure of all major support columns. Something is rotten in Denmark, Fred.

    In any event, this one is sure getting you the eyeballs.

  91. @onebornfree

    Let’s assume the photos were “photoshopped” to make the angle of the falling block look more like it was going to fall off the side of the building.

    If the claim of photoshopping is true, then it is just more disinformation put out by somebody with an agenda. We have basis to know what that agenda is.

    The question is whether claims of exaggerated “photoshopped” pictures, even if absolutely true, have any significance, when subsequent photos of this block shows complete disintegration of the block a few seconds later?

    And the clear answer is no they don’t. The disintegration is what is important. If the block had managed to stay in tact, then the question would be whether it would have fallen off to the side, which is what you would normally expect if the block kept leaning. And had it fallen off to the side, gravitational compression would have been reduced by the loss of weight and momentum of the block.

    When the block disintegrates, it looses most of its ability to crush. We know it has disintegrated because there is no jolt, or deceleration of the block in the subsequent frames when it hits the floors beneath it, which is normally what would happen if the block remained in tact. And when it disintegrates it loses its capacity to create a gravitational collapse.

    If it falls off to the side, the official theory is toast. If it disintegrates, the official theory is toast. Because in either situation, the odds of gravitational collapse are zero or near zero.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  92. tanabear says:

    Could you quote verbatim what the official view is, please?

    The NIST(National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on World Trade Towers 1 and 2 came out in 2005. The NIST report on the towers is primarily a building performance study. It looks at what kind of damage the building sustained from the time the airplanes impacted and the subsequent fire damage to the building. They state this themselves in their report,

    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”

    It was not NIST, but Zdenek Bazant and others who wrote papers in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that sought explain the collapse of the towers. What was the initiating event? The inward bowing of the perimeter columns due to the catenary action of the sagging floor trusses. The explanation of Bazant is “crush-down, crush-up”. The upper block(top 12 stories) crushes the lower block and once it finishes crushing, the lower block experiences a crush-up. If I have to explain to you why this is BS you haven’t thought it through very well.

    Note: Many people still believe that the jet fuel fires did melt the steel and this is what caused the towers to collapse. Lee Hamilton, former co-chair on the 9/11 Commission, stated this in an interview with the CBC back in 2006. “…the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse.’ As Lee Hamilton is considered an “expert” by the mainstream media on 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission report is considered the official account of what happened, saying that the “official story” is that jet fuel fires melted the steel is not far off.

    p.s. NIST does not endorse this view though.

  93. CMC says:

    I like what Reed is doing here. I see it as a sort of ‘defending the prosecution,’ defending the verdict. And he makes good points. And it’s a useful social work. Cops and prosecutors deserve a defense —especially when the judge and jury end-up agreeing with them enough to convict. The prosecution will say, well, this was our theory and this was the evidence and the judge and jury agreed, so the burden is those who would over turn it to come up with something more compelling —not merely flaws or minor holes in the story that the jury weighed and considered. The burden has shifted, they’ll say or imply.

    But I’m not sure the burden shifting way of looking at it applies to September 11.

    Reed and others might say NIST and best efforts of best people etc. etc., but was there ever a real trial, with real guys with their own skin in the game and on the line? Weren’t even the civil suits between corporations and people settled? Wasn’t there some pressure put on people to settle those suits —pressure and reward, carrot and stick? I don’t know. I’ve followed this off and on but maybe I’ve missed some huge trial. Was there a guy convicted? Live or in abstentia? But, was the whole theory of how it happened tried and tested in that trial? Or was just enough of it to convict him put into evidence?

    Maybe at a certain level —international incidents, there’s no way to have, as it were, a fair trial?

    So when Reed, the ex metro crime beat reporter, defends the government with, “tell me a story [that makes sense] [and deals with all my counter-criticisms],” I think a fair response is, “you first.”

  94. @Bill Jones

    Bill Jones, this is brilliant!, thanks.

  95. @bjondo

    What would Reed’s purpose be to troll?

    Because in contrast to his own trolls he appreciates irony and has a sense of humor.

    • Replies: @bjondo
  96. @utu

    No, he enjoys irony and writes with humor, something that is lost on many of his readers.

  97. bjondo says:

    Thermite, nanothermite, thermate etc. are NOT explosives

    Unlike thermite, “Nano-thermite can be used as an explosive,” notes Dr. Harrit.

    nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.


    • Replies: @Sparkon
  98. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Genrick Yagoda says:”You’d best tell that to NIST. ”

    Why would I even bother? Why do you believe anything the NIST has to say? Do you know who/what specifically funds their , er, “research”?

    Genrick Yagoda says: “You can also explain that to A&E911, as they hosted that photo. But what would 3,275 Architects and Structural Engineers know compared to one man’s blog?”

    Richard Gage [who heads A&E911, I believe] , is actually on my email list. 😜

    Architects / Engineers obviously have no experience in photo/video analysis. It seems that they didn’t even have common sense enough to gather all the different versions of that photo [as I did] , and then compare them to eachother, as I have tried to do to show the many [completely impossible] visual contradictions .

    And they still haven’t figured out that all of the original US MSM “live” footage broadcast on the morning of 9/11 [including any/all “live tower collapse footage], upon which most of their 9/11 conclusions are ultimately based, is 100% fake , pre-fabricated, computer generated imagery [CGI], broadcast as being “live from Manhattan”.

    See:The 9/11 Scam-The Faked “Live” MSM Imagery:

    “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”:

    It seems that the phrase “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”, applies not only to yourself, but also to Mr Gage and all at A&E911. But that’s OK.😊

    And so it goes….

    Regards, onebornfree

  99. KenH says:

    I dunno Fredrico, so you then believe that some of their passports fluttered to the ground amidst the rubble of the twin towers, too? Somehow they survived the intense heat and destruction. God must really be on their side if he refused to allow the passports of Muslim holy warriors to be incinerated, but did allow 2000 people to perish.

    Fredrico must not be feeling well since he didn’t weave in any of the anecdotes about how mestizos are the salt of the earth while whites who wish to preserve their national borders and racial integrity are inhuman monsters and ignoramuses.

  100. onebornfree says: • Website

    davidgmillsatty says: “We know it has disintegrated because there is no jolt, or deceleration of the block in the subsequent frames ”

    If you believe that those first photos are deliberately altered, why would you then continue to believe that any so-called “subsequent frames ” are in any way genuine? Aren’t any/all “subsequent frames” now equally suspect?


    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  101. @onebornfree

    Whether NIST are or are not experts in photography, for some reason they included the fact that the top of building tipped over between 20-25 degrees. Given their agenda, it’s unlikely they would even mention it if there were not enough evidence for them to address the subject.

    And anyway, see @davidgmillsatty above. What he said.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  102. Sparkon says:

    Words and assertions are not proof, nor are theories.

    To my knowledge, there is no real world demonstration showing thermite, nanothermite, thermate etc. to have any significant explosive properties.

    If you’ve got it, show it.

    Provide a citation or link please, where any of these incendiaries were used to blow something to pieces, especially something weighing several hundred thousand tons each, like the Twin Towers.

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @tanabear
  103. @onebornfree

    You can’t assume that because one frame is photoshopped all frames of all videos are photoshopped. Lots of witnesses say the buildings come down in real life. And there were lots of videos from different angles that confirm that the block in question disintegrated. If had not disintegrated it would have fallen off to the side. And no videos show this. No witnesses say the block came off to the side and there was no evidence of the block having fallen in tact at the base of the building. Rubble from a block falling in tact would be distinctly different from the other rubble that was disintegrated.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  104. @Sparkon

    “Thermite, nanothermite, thermate etc. are NOT explosives, period. They are incendiaries used to CUT but not destroy steel.”

    That is not what their paper concludes at all. Did you read it? My guess is that you did not. They clearly describe the nanoparticles as ” highly energetic” which means explosive.

    You are correct that thermite and thermate are primarily incendiaries. But the red/gray chips were nanothermite, not thermite or thermate. And in my post above I clearly stated that nanothermite was an explosive and thermite/thermate are incindiaries.

    And here is what the paper actually said comparing the explosiveness of nano-thermite to other demolition explosives:

    What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives?

    A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials [21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 (nanothermite) composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).

    According to the graph, which I am unable to cut or paste, it shows that nanothermite is twice as explosive as both TATB and TNT and that even MDX is only 62% as explosive as nanothermite.

    See page 27 of the paper.

  105. @ Achmed E Newman,

    Thank you for your perspective. Please do read up on the Payne Stewart Lear jet incident and note how in this event the ‘by the book’ procedures resulted in a near immediate interception by two fighters.

    How long would one expect air traffic controllers to be ‘asleep’ when four major passenger airliners shut off their transponders (if at all possible) and roam around the friendly skies of the East coast with impunity? Incompetence can be expected anywhere but even that has a limit.

    That is why I prefer the Gordian knot approach because I had already been 9/11 fatigued over ten years ago. What really fascinates me is that even at UNZ some otherwise erudite commenters and level headed thinkers on other topics still buy into the official story.

    I believe that has to do with a defensive mechanism built in some people’s psyches that accepting something so out of one’s world view would result in becoming insane or doing a header off the nearest bridge. Hence the mental blockage much like shock when severely wounded, to calm the host down and not accentuate the trauma.

    My two pesos as Fredo might say these days.


    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  106. Dumbo says:

    I’m not an expert in any sense and I can’t say I know what happened on 9/11, but what is clear is that many aspects of the official narrative are preposterous.

    1. There is no way that aluminum planes brought down, not only two, but seven (!) enormous buildings, many which were not even touched by the planes. And all straight down as in a demolition. It just boggles the mind. It is not the first time that planes hit buildings, but the only time in which they caused such an unbelievable catastrophe that can’t even be explained by normal physics.

    2. Many other mysteries such as the hijackers who were found alive, the lack of plane debris in flight 93 and the Pentagon, the supposed phone calls from the planes, the dancing Israelis, etc, remain unexplained or do not make sense.

    3. Larry Silverstein. No way, absolutely no way that the bastard didn’t know in advance.

    4. The whole OBL story, from his “masterminding” of the attacks from Afghanistan to his “burial at sea”, is completely bogus and ridiculous. Whoever believes that is a dupe.

    • Replies: @Frizz
  107. Dear Ron Unz,
    Ask Menachem Atzmon about those planes.Gilad should be able to make contact.Just tell him all us Americans are so greatful for his role in guarding Logan on 9/11.If Trump and Giuliani only knew that Israelis were guarding Logan Airport Boston on 9/11 they would surely want to give him a medal for his great work in protecting America.Unfortunately the New York Times never reported on ICTS International as they were too busy ‘informing’ us of Osama bin Laden’srole and they had the duty to inform us about all those WMDS in Iraq.
    Although Menachem Atzmon admitted responsibility for guard only one planes,flight 175 I believe, in ICTS International’s SEC filings,he was also virtually a handler of ”Islamic shoe bomber Richard Reid’ whose pre 9/11 trip to Israel was carried out by both ICTS and El Al who flew him there pre 9/11 and then acting as security for American Airlines only a short tie after 9/11 allowed hi to board a flight to U.S. with his shoe bomb.
    Veterans Today’s Gordon Duff omitted all mention of Menachem Atzmon when writing about Nigerian crotch bomber Mutallab after ICTS allowed him to board flight 253 from Amsterdam on Christmas 2009 and even blocked my post asking if Gilad Atzmon who was writing for him at the time was related.When Duff began his nuke disinfo campaign along with an outrageous slander of Christopher Bollyn a bit after the ICTS Christmas crotch bomber false flag that led to more draconian airport searches of American citizens and Michael Chertoff selling more ‘Israeli airport security tech even though Israel tech and ICTS and Menachem Atzmon had already proved on 9/11 that Israeli airport security should be avoided at all costs !

    As for Fred Reed maybe he is saying between the lines that he hopes his ost recent blog will land him a job with UK Jewish Zionist Joe Lewis who virtually owns Patagonia and sponsers IDF soldiers there FOR SOME MYSTERIOUS REASON will be sending his private plane to Chapala and wisk hi away to Zionist heaven in Patagonia.

  108. @ruralguy

    We should not defer to them when they never looked for explosives. That is the first thing which happens in any fire or explosion in a house or building. There are rules for investigating any building that has a fire or explosion. You go through the rules and procedures for finding incendiaries and explosives. No ifs, ands, or buts. You follow the rules or raise huge red flags.

    Testing the dust was a no-brainer. It is the most logical place to look for the evidence of incendiaries or explosives. NIST didn’t do it because NIST management had made their minds up that it was not taken down by a demolition. They did not want to know.

    And independent testing of the dust by Jones and Harrit (university professors) showed that it was loaded with a new type of explosive: nanothermite. And nanothermite is much more explosive than customary demolition explosives like TNT or MDX.

    • Replies: @ruralguy
  109. @onebornfree

    Let’s assume there are many contradictions in the videos. Many investigations involving fire or explosives are not videoed and the investigations are still able to make sound scientific conclusions about whether incendiaries or explosives were used to destroy houses and buildings.

    Under the rules of investigation you always check for incendiaries and explosives. Always. For one thing insurance companies usually demand to know before they pay a claim because they will not pay a claim for an arson or an explosion they suspect was caused by the owner of the building. And most homes and buildings are insured.

    So checking ash and dust for incendiaries and explosives are the norm. And NIST refused to check for them. And when NIST refused Jones and Harritt did and found the telltale evidence of intentional demolition: nanothermites.

    So you pestering Gage about inconsistent videos is not going to change his conclusion or that of any of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth about their conclusions regarding demolition.

  110. @Timur The Lame

    Thanks for the reply, Timur. Like I wrote, I’m just addressing the aviation part of this story (and it may indeed be just a story). I know about Payne Stewart’s jet and the pressurization problem. I’m guessing the controllers knew it was an emergency.

    I long ago watched a youtube video with audio from the center whose airspace those planes were flying through. There is a big workload on the controllers. They noticed a lack of radar returns after a short while, tried some radio calls, but they have to take care of lots of other aircraft. Something like this with 3 or 4 aircraft may seem to be a system problem – I just don’t think they would expect some kind of mass hijacking like this. I want you to know that the guy who made the video was of your opinion, Timur, but watching it did not give me ANY impression that there was anything faked or bogus about what happened.

    Yes, one can just switch off the transponder. (There is ADS-B required in the same airspace that used to require transponders, as of the 1st of this year, BTW). Once these planes started roaming around the skies, they were not so easy to find or at least pick out. You give too much credit to big systems, just like the people that think the real CIA folks are as competent and have all that information at their fingertips, like the characters in the Bourne (whatever) movies.

    Just for laughs, see “Apprehending Jason Bourne, we’re the government and we’re all on it.”, “Apprehending Jason Bourne (part 2) – All-powerful Feral Gov’t – NOT!”, and “Apprehending Jason Bourne (part 3) – All-powerful Feral Gov’t – NOT!”.


    Judge Hellerstein’s Unethical Connection to Key Defendant in 9-11 Lawsuit
    Updated May 10, 2010

    9-11 Judge is Connected to Rothschild-Funded Mossad Culprit ICTS


    It is very crass and it probably will come back to be critical of me, but there is an expression that is sometimes very useful, ‘Money is the universal lubricant.’ It makes it easier to go on with one’s life.
    – Alvin K. Hellerstein

    This bastard judicial system is so corrupt.
    – 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani

    He can’t understand our loss. He sees the solution in a very cold and pragmatic way – in dollars and cents. He thinks everybody should take the money and go away.
    – Mike Low, father of Sara, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11

    Alvin K. Hellerstein (was) the judge who (handled) all 9-11 litigation. His son is an Israeli lawyer who emigrated to Israel in 2001 and whose law firm works for and with the Rothschild-funded Mossad company responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks. This presents a clear case of criminal conflict of interest and explains why Hellerstein has protected the Israeli culprits of the false-flag terrorism of 9-11 by preventing a trial and blocking any legal discovery of what really happened. (NYT photo)

    U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, the Orthodox Jew who oversees all 9-11 related cases, is seldom discussed in the news. While his name does appear occasionally in the press, for example when he sentenced a “terrorism financier” to prison in April, the secretive judge who handles all 9-11 tort litigation is virtually unknown to most Americans. This is intentional, of course, because any discussion of the Bronx-born judge would reveal his Zionist roots and close relationship to the state of Israel, where his son Joseph Z. Hellerstein lives on a Jewish settlement on the West Bank and practices law with one of Israel’s most important law firms, Amit, Pollak & Matalon……..

    This is of crucial importance because one of the key defendants in the 9-11 wrongful death tort litigation process ()was the Mossad-controlled airport security firm named International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) N.V., which is the owner of Huntleigh U.S.A., the passenger screening company that checked the passengers that boarded the aircraft at the key airports on 9-11. The Israeli-owned ICTS is one of the aviation security defendants responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks. Any 9-11 trial would require ICTS and Huntleigh to provide evidence and explain who ran their security checkpoints on 9-11 and how the 19 terrorists got on the planes in spite of the fact that their names were not found on the passenger lists. Judge Hellerstein has prevented a trial and effectively blocked any discovery that would reveal what really happened on 9-11.

    Hellerstein has a clear conflict of interest in the 9-11 tort litigation because his son is a lawyer with Amit, Pollak & Matalon, the law firm that works for and is closely connected with Cukierman & Company, the parent company of ICTS. Cukierman & Co. is headed by Roger Cukierman and his son Edouard. Previously, Roger was CEO of the Edmond de Rothschild Group and chairman of the Israel General Bank. He has also served as the chairman of several venture capital funds established by the Rothschild Group. One of these funds, the Catalyst Fund, is run by Boaz Harel, a managing partner of private equity at Cukierman & Co. – and the head of ICTS at the time of 9-11. The Rothschild/Cukierman Catalyst Fund is also invested in a company called Cyalume, which is run by several of the SCP Partners of Ehud Barak. The Israeli Mossad corporate network may seem large but it always involves the same small group of people at the top. Many of the names are easily recognized by a researcher who is familiar with the Zionist criminal network. One of the head people of the Catalyst Fund and Cyalume, for example, is Yair Shamir, the son of the well-known terrorist-cum-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir………

  112. @Achmed E. Newman,

    Ok about the Lear jet’s technical problems but the point was about the prompt scramble of the 2 fighters, how fast they were alerted and how fast they arrived. The speeds were pretty cool also from what I remember.
    It seemed to be SOP.

    I shudder to think what would have happened on a day like 9/11 if a WW2 British ( perfidious Albion) 1000 bomber raid would have crossed the Atlantic. Surely the East Coast air defense had some procedures in place on how to co-ordinate situations deemed unusual between the air force and the civilian authority. Now I recall the information that there was an air drill that day and suddenly feel nauseous from my previous overindulgence re 9/11 lore.

    Let’s go on to the underwear bomber- ha!


    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  113. Frizz says:

    This claim about steel melting is simply retarded, as are you. It does not have to melt. It does have to be heated enough to weaken it, and the fires from kerosene and other material is hot enough to do just that.

  114. Frizz says:

    You are a sucker of the highest order. You hang your hat on “there is no way that aluminum planes” could have brought down a building. And this gem, “can’t even be explained by normal physics.” I guess you are not familiar with kinetic energy, which makes sense because you are a retard who parrots all of the crap you memorized on truther websites.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  115. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    “Given their agenda, it’s unlikely they would even mention it if there were not enough evidence for them to address the subject.”

    You’re kidding right? If not, your naivete is both “touching” and hilarious. Congratulations! 😂

    Then again, I need to remind myself that, as PT Barnum famously said: “There’s a sucker born every minute”


    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  116. onebornfree says: • Website

    “You can’t assume that because one frame is photoshopped all frames of all videos are photoshopped.”

    So you know with absolute certainty which frames are genuine and which are not , right? They only “fixed” one or two frames in any sequence, right? And you know this for a fact, right? Because never cross-examined alleged witnesses, and the NIST would never lie, right? 😂

    Please stop ! I can’t take any more- between you and the other clown in this discussion ,the laughing fits are gonna kill me.

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  117. @Achmed E. Newman

    I am just happy to read an article not related to the Iran issue.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  118. @onebornfree

    You think a few “inconsistent” videos prove the buildings were not brought down by demolition? As I explained in another response to you, videos seldom are used to determine whether arson or explosives caused a fire in a building or an explosion in a building. The evidence is usually chemistry or physics which you seem to know zilch about.

    And by the way there is very good support for my position on videos. Here is a genuine scholarly paper on the subject that is peer reviewed.

    You have had since 2006 to produce a peer review article of your own rebutting this one. Where have you been?

    Gates and the Architects and Engineers almost certainly know about this paper since they are highly connected to/with the scientists at the Journal for 911 Studies. The proof set out in this paper has to be a good reason for not giving your disinformationist idiotic ideas the time a day.

    Do up your paper, get it peer reviewed and maybe you might get an audience from them.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  119. @onebornfree

    It is referred to as an admission against interest. In courts, this is usually considered damning evidence.

    There is nothing to laugh about here. No matter what you (incorrectly) believe about fake photos or fake videos, the murder of a million or more people flowed from this deceptive attack on the WTC complex.

    In the future, I will give your posts the consideration they deserve. None.

  120. bjondo says:

    Nano thermite should not have been
    found at the WTC complex.

    Why was it there?
    Replacement for parade confetti?

    Some sort of explosive(s)
    destroyed minimum three towers.

    The world saw that,
    the world believes that,
    excepting D. State operatives.

    Truthers want to understand.
    You/others defend lies (for shekels?).

    As the adage informs:

    “You can drag a NeoCon to court
    but the truth will still be missing.”


    • Replies: @Sparkon
  121. bjondo says:
    @Weston Waroda

    Not really familiar with Reed.
    Too much to read.
    Very little time.


  122. Tony says:

    You make sense with this one Fred.

  123. Dumbo says:

    This happened in 1945. I would think that modern buildings were stronger or more resistant, but I guess it’s not the case. Maybe there is a way in which it could have happened that two planes and subsequent fires brought down seven buildings, but if you don’t think it’s a very freak/strange occurrence, then there’s something wrong with you. Also as I said there are many other very strange coincidences in this whole story, so if you just believe the official story without questions, you are the retarded one. Best.

  124. xander77 says:
    @C. S. P. Schofield

    FEA proves demolition of WTC 7, and will soon prove demolition of both towers. The demolitions were for the destruction of evidence, obliterating obviated office space, and critically…. taking control of 21st century oil, aka “data” via the PATRIOT Act and clandestine mirroring of all telecommunication lines. The wars were a secondary objective.

    • Replies: @HalS
  125. xander77 says:


    All it takes is observation to see that only fractions of the perimeter columns were cut by explosives, as squibs are seen in central sections, and huge pieces of outer columns are shows streaming away from the building as one big mass. So right off the bat your 239 figure is grossly inflated. The “North Tower Exploding” video by David Chandler, on AE911truth’s YT channel, shows this very clearly.

    A simple Google Scholar search of “nanothermite” and “gaseous expansion” will show you plenty of peer reviewed work revealing the explosive power of the exotic materiel.

    Nanothermite was discovered in the WTC dust in copious amounts. Denying demolition at this point in our trajectory is like being a geo-centrist, at some point you’ll have to submit.

    To the point of your article, the elevator renovations provided access to all of the core columns, and your notion that it would take one person one day to place one charge tells me you’re not actually serious about the answer to your question. But don’t worry Fred, FEA will answer it for you sooner than you might anticipate.

  126. Anonymous[131] • Disclaimer says:

    And yet, Fred, the guy who walked on a tightrope between the two buildings (Philippe Petit) was able to do so by having his crew pose as maintenance men to put certain equipment in place.

  127. onebornfree says: • Website

    “You think a few “inconsistent” videos prove the buildings were not brought down by demolition? ”

    No, I believe that all of the alleged 9/11 videos are 100% fake ,made on computers [CGI], [ie no “photo-shopped” frames-they’re all fake], including all of the original “live” US MSM broadcast footage, and that [therefor] analysis of 100% fake footage, from any claimed source [“amateur” or Professional”] that depicts either: magical, top down “collapses” of 2 towers, or of bottom-up collapses [eg WTC7], is a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!

    See: “The “Tower Collapse” Animation Sequences”:

    Most likely, the entire complex [7 buildings- not 3!] was demolished via standard building demolition methodology entirely off camera , that day.

    If you don’t know, in standard building demolition methodology [especially for tall buildings] , the buildings are collapsed from the ground up [because the base is around 8x stronger than floors further up and must be removed first, so that the floors above will then naturally collapse into the newly created space below them] . Dynamite is typically used for these types of ground-up demolitions.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  128. Sparkon says:

    Nano thermite should not have been
    found at the WTC complex.

    Really? So there’s no chance the substance had been stored in the WTC for reasons unknown, or that perhaps Mayor Giuliani’s crews were using nanothermite and/or other incendiaries to cut through steel debris during clean-up at the WTC? The dust was not collected until October.

    Whether or not “nanothermite” was found in WTC dust has not been established since no one has replicated Harris et al’s results, and it really does not matter anyway unless is established that nanothermite is a powerful explosive by doing what I requested above: show us the results of any real-word test where this mythical nanothermite has blown something to pieces as a demonstration of its reputed explosiveness.

    ‘Still waiting.

    In any event, not everyone agrees with your assumptions about the dust. Read Prager’s link I gave above. The dust was not recovered from the WTC at all, but from nearby locations. There was no chain of possession with said dust, and at least one subsequent test on it revealed no nanothermite at all, but rather paint chips.

    Scientific Consultants in Duluth, Ga. released a study of these chips collected from WTC dust.
    Their conclusion: There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. They say the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

    (my bold)

    By now, nanothermite enthusiasts have been yammering about their pet chemical compound for over 10 years, but in all that time, they still have failed to produce even one test, experiment, or demonstration of nanothermite’s explosive properties despite having adequate time and the seeming motivation to put the results of an experiment where their mouths are.

    Bottom line: until you can prove that your beloved nanothermite has its reputed explosive power to destroy the WTC, nanothermite is nothing but a Big Red Herring, and I think it’s way past time for the crowd of nanothermite advocates to either put up and prove nanothermite is an explosive, or shut up.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
    , @bjondo
  129. @onebornfree

    From the paper I cited which you did not bother to read:

    The plane would have been clearly visible over most of the southern tip of Manhattan, from the streets in a wide area of shorter buildings just south of the towers, the majority of the southern and eastern facing windows of the buildings south of the towers (such as this photo from, the rooftops of those buildings, the Manhattan and Jersey shorelines along the Hudson, any boats on the water and Ellis Island, where camera toting tourists visit the Statue of Liberty. Moreover, since the plane, hitting at floors 77-85, was above most of the tall buildings on the East side, the plane was visible from higher vantage points all over midtown, Brooklyn and large parts of Queens.

    What we have of images of flight 175 from 9/11 is exactly what we would expect: a great variety of still and moving images from a variety of angles from near and far and from mainstream media down to amateurs. There are absolutely no images of missiles or small planes. So, were these photographers and videographers all agents? There has been no research into their backgrounds. If they weren’t, then what was the chain of custody of the tape before being aired? Was the allegedly modified footage the original or a duplicate of the original (as one would expect) supplied by the videographer? Who now has the original? If the photographer has the original, then are we to believe he or she does not care that their image showed something different than was on TV? None of these questions are answered. The default explanation, and the only answer possible, is the bug-eyed assertion that somehow the perps of 9/11 controlled all the cameras in NY on 9/11.

    Ultimately the “no planes” people and the “all videos are bad” people will be understood to be the quacks the are. That is your destiny.

    • Agree: 2stateshmustate
  130. @Sparkon

    Here is the problem with the tests of the MVA Scientific Consultants in Deluth Georgia. They failed to faithfully reproduce the tests of Harritt and Jones. You do not refute a test unless you faithfully reproduce it and get another result. The article you linked to says they did “additional” testing but that does not mean they did the same tests as Harritt and Jones.

    This is nothing but an old trick. I can’t believe people fall for this deception all of the time.

    I wanted to find out what they actually did to compare it to Jones and Harritt, but there is a 404 error to the link. I did find the analysis here:

    Here is what jumped out at me first:

    “At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1).16”

    So the first question is whether he even have a WTC dust sample to test or was he given a fraudulent dust sample that had red/gray chips that looked like the ones Harritt and Jones tested.

    And then there is a major inconsistency between the summary and the conclusion.

    From the summary:

    The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca.

    From the conclusion:

    There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

    So first he finds aluminum and then concludes that he doesn’t.

    This paper seriously needs peer review. But it is really not a scientific paper at all for anyone to review.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  131. @davidgmillsatty

    One more thing. The MVA Scientific Consultants did not follow the scientific method which is why there would never be any need for any review of this “paper.”

    In following the scientific method, the idea is to set up a test and describe it in such a way that someone could replicate your test. There is no way on earth anyone could replicate their tests because this paper do not describe what they did. There is no “recipe” to follow.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  132. MathCapt says:

    I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this; but when I went through the flight deck fire fighting class, someone asked why they were pushing the planes over the side. The answer was the magnesium alloys used in construction are almost impossible to to put out. And if left to burn will melt right through the ship until they drop out of the bottom or hit something flammable.

  133. ruralguy says:

    A thermite reaction is merely a simple reduction oxidation (redox) reaction of iron oxide and aluminum. It’s reactants and products (iron and aluminum oxide) are very likely to be widespread in the demolished building, if there is any water that electrically connects iron oxide (rust) with aluminum.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  134. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I’ve been skipping them, other than mentions by Steve Sailer and Audacious Epigone.

  135. @Timur The Lame

    Yeah, I know, some fighters were scrambled to see if they could somehow help Payne Stewart’s plane and people, and they were pretty expedient. This plane was likely squawking a code and easily tracked. The thing is, that wasn’t the busy airspace like New York or Boston Center runs. Yes, there are differing numbers of personnel, I’m sure, to cover the appropriate traffic, but I’m just saying it would take quite a while to really realize what was going on in the 9/11 case. Once they were primary radar target only, I don’t think it’d be easy or quick to just catch up with them

    On your 1,000 bomber raid, Timur, first I want to say that I read a whole book on it, I think called exactly that! The guy running it was “Bomber Harris”, as I recall. Yes, of course coastal defense is a different story – there is an ADIZ (Air Defense (?) Identification Zone) that goes along the whole shoreline. I’m pretty sure penetration of that from the outside without a clearance or flight plan or communication would get someone’s attention prontomundo! There wouldn’t necessarily have to be coordination with the civilian world in that case.

    Yeah, the underwear bomber reminds me too much of the stupid TSA security theater shitshow, about which those links in my first comment on the thread point to posts about.

  136. tanabear says:

    Thermite was used to demolish the Skyride Towers back in the 1930s.

    The SkyRide Towers, an attraction built for the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933, consisted of two 628-foot-tall steel towers, connected by an aerial suspension system that ferried passengers from one tower to the other. At the time, its staggering height made it the tallest structure in Chicago.

    Two years after its construction, the Skyride Towers attraction was closed and scheduled for demolition. The October 1935 issue of Popular Mechanics reported that while demolition teams used conventional dynamite to bring down the West tower, they decided to bring the East Tower down with a thermite compound, which was used to melt two of the steel legs…”

    You can watch engineer Jon Cole do his own experiments with thermite and how it can be used to cut through steel columns.

    • Replies: @Tony Ryals
  137. bjondo says:

    ‘Still waiting.

    Persistence pays off even when dishonest and deceiving:


  138. @Achmed E. Newman

    The most obviously ridiculous parts of the Official Story, as far as I am concerned, are the videos of the “planes” not crashing onto the towers, but slicing into them and in one case actually coming out of the other side! (I’m not sure but I rather think it also popped back in again after its brief appearance on the other side of the building.) When you look at the effect that a goose has on an airliner when they have a mid-air collision, one can see just how utterly impossible this is. To my mind, this is proof that the pictures are computer-generated images, not films of real events.

    There is also, the case of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State building which did very minor damage, well, minor relative to 9/11! See Wikipedia for details.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  139. onebornfree says: • Website

    davidgmillsatty says: “The MVA Scientific Consultants did not follow the scientific method” .

    But neither did/do 99% of the 9/11 “researchers”, with specific regard to any/all alleged photo or video “evidence.” [including yourself apparently 🙂 ]!

    Basic scientific methodology requires that the scientist[s] , in order to come up with any credible hypothesis, must first closely examine all alleged “evidence” [ videos and photos in this instance] , to first determine whether or not it/they are genuine evidence which could be trusted, and from which some sort of reasonable hypothesis as to what did/did not happen might then be put forward.

    And yet, in the case of 9/11, 99% of the “scientific research” community, including all of the biggest names [ eg A&E 9/11 Truth, Loose Change, Judy Wood,Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Richard Hall, Dmitri Khalezov etc. etc.], have steadfastly refused to first undertake any detailed forensic, frame by frame analysis of any of the alleged photographic evidence, and have instead, to a man, asserted that all of that “evidence” is inherently trustworthy [without forensic analysis], and therefor can be used to formulate a viable hypothesis about what did/did not happen on 9/11, [particularly with regard to what caused the [7] buildings to “collapse” that day].

    This is a repeated, gross violation of basic scientific methodology protocol, and results either out of: 1] Ignorance,

    …..or 2] Its deliberate- because some [ all?] of the above named groups/persons are controlled opposition who are deliberately protecting the medias central role in the 9/11 scam.

    See: “911 Scams:Professor Jim “First Blush” Fetzer’s Trashing of The Scientific Method”

    See also: “9/11 Scams: The 9/11 “Truth Movement” Versus “The Burden of Proof””:

    See also: “The Power of Imagery”:

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  140. onebornfree says: • Website

    foolisholdman says: “The most obviously ridiculous parts of the Official Story, as far as I am concerned, are the videos of the “planes” not crashing onto the towers, but slicing into them and in one case actually coming out of the other side! ”

    This is what you are talking about:


    Regards, onebornfree

  141. @onebornfree

    Of the names you mentioned, I only consider Jones’ work scientifically valid. The only other scientist is Judy Wood, as far as I know, and her beam theory is just a theory without any evidence. She never tested anything as far as I know, although she did do a paper on free fall that seemed to be accurate from a mathematics point of view.

    It is totally misleading on your part to accuse the 9/11 truth movement of not following the scientific method when you set up a strawman of people who are not scientists, and then claim the movement refuses to follow it.

    The real scientists of the 9/11 truth movement are those at the Journal of 9/11 studies, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, and a few others like Huffman.

    You apparently ignored the article I posted. The overwhelming evidence by eyewitnesses is that the videos were consistent with what the eye witnesses saw.

    And you can’t get around that fact.

    I guess you think that what happened in NYC on 9/11 was not real. That the buildings did not fall down. You can live in your video world if you like. The rest of us prefer to live in the real one.

  142. @tanabear

    Thanks for posting the thermate experiment.I saw one or two youtube classroom type thermate experiments and I remember some burning and melting but never any exploding like this and none showed thermate cutting a beam like this,I just presumed explosives were also used.They still may have been,particularly at the base of the buildings where people are recorded having heard explosions early on.
    Also very intersting information about thermate having been used in 1935 to down one of those World Fair towers in Chicago.

    The video is worth reposting.

  143. @ruralguy

    I am not quite sure what you are getting at although I have a couple of suspicions. Care to elaborate further?

    • Replies: @ruralguy
  144. @Sparkon

    Here is a video of a backyard thermite maker cutting steel beams. Cut to the chase at about 8 minutes, the rest of the video has good background on the World Trade Center construction.

    Gordon Duff of Veterans Today admits that up to 40% of the site content is false, and he makes up 30 % of what he writes. Not good numbers …

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  145. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The real scientists of the 9/11 truth movement are those at the Journal of 9/11 studies, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, and a few others like Huffman.”

    If Architects and Engineers are really as “scientific” as you seem to hallucinate, then they certainly have not followed scientific protocol with regards to forensic analysis of imagery before using any of it as “evidence”, to draw conclusions. They simply never bothered with it at all! 😀

    As for the Journal of 9/11 studies being in any way being “scientific”, you’re kidding, right?

    At the website I just looked at : , they have the 100% fake Gulnara Samoilova WTC1 “top tilt” photo at the top of the front page 😂, making them essentially no different from the “scientists” at A&E For 9/11 Truth.

    “You apparently ignored the article I posted. The overwhelming evidence by eyewitnesses is that the videos were consistent with what the eye witnesses saw.And you can’t get around that fact.”

    And those “eyewitnesses have allbeen investigated/cross-examined in what court, by exactly who? , and when? , and how many times? Get around that, mister “scientist.”

    Talk about still being “wet behind the ears”! You really don’t have a frickin’ clue, do you?

    No regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  146. Clickable link to thermite video-

  147. @onebornfree

    At the website I just looked at : , they have the 100% fake Gulnara Samoilova WTC1 “top tilt” photo at the top of the front page 😂, making them essentially no different from the “scientists” at A&E For 9/11 Truth.

    So says you and who the F are you? A nobody.

    What you seem to be very good at is logical fallacies in addition to your Dunning Kruger concepts of the scientific method.

    Your first logical fallacy, even before your strawman argument, was one called composition/division, or actually its corollary. That logical fallacy states that you can not assume that because one part of a composition is true, all parts are. The corollary is that because one part of a composition is false all parts are.

    Of course that is what your video analysis is. You assume that since in your opinion some videos are faked, each and every one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of videos and pictures are faked. And this is your basis for disproving an even larger composition: any claims of demolition must not be true.

    And the truly ironic thing is your sarcastic comment that I wouldn’t buy your logical fallacy. You doubled down on your logical fallacy.

    Here is a short summary of logical fallacies which you might refer to in the future:

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  148. Sparkon says:
    @Complex Pseudonymic Handle

    cutting steel beams.

    Nobody disputes that thermite can cut steel beams, given enough time. Cutting is not the same as blowing up, exploding, or turning to dust, which is what seems to have happened to much of the mass of the Twin Towers.

    An additional question is: Does thermite even react quickly enough to be useful in controlled demolitions?

    Cole’s video shows a lot of fire, smoke, and hissing to made some relatively small cuts and holes in steel plate after several seconds of the pyrotechnics. He used thermate, not thermite, and had to build special containment rigs to cut the steel. It looks like you’d need a passel of those to take down the Twin Towers.

    Thermate is used in incendiary grenades, so it’s no big surprise really to see that it can burn small holes in steel, given enough time. By most accounts, thermite etc. react too slowly to be useful in most controlled demolitions, where precise timing and immediate effect are necessary to ensure that the structure will collapse straight down.

    The Sky Ride was demolished at the conclusion of the fair. The west tower was brought down using 120 pounds of dynamite. The east tower was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs. When the thermite was fired, the two legs collapsed and the tower fell on its side.

    So it took 1,500 pounds of thermite to do what 120 pounds of dynamite had done — 12.5x as much — and the tower fell on its side, which is not the result desired in most controlled demolitions, but towers are not buildings, and if you’ve got the room to knock it over, it’s probably easier and safer to cut the tower to pieces on the ground.

    Of course, that was not the case with the WTC.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, there were no debris heaps where WTC 1 and WTC 2 had stood. During the top down demolitions, much of the mass of the exploding Twin Towers seems to have been ejected laterally even while turning to dust, but many of the external column sections were scattered all over and beyond the WTC complex, with a few of these smashing into surrounding buildings several hundred feet away, propelled there by an explosive force far beyond anything that any thermite has ever demonstrated.

    And there was no sign in the rubble of desks, file cabinets, elevator cars, staircases, floor joists, floor pans, doors, toilets, light fixtures, plumbing, and the whole array of expected office contents.

    So you really think thermite, thermate, or nanothermite just vaporized all that stuff, or would you consider that it really might have been something else?

    VT is no different than any other source. Everything it publishes has to be evaluated on its own merits. The article on the WTC dust at VT was written by Jeff Prager, not Gordon Duff.

  149. @Sparkon

    My post above answers your question. Thermate/thermite is an incendiary only. Nanothermite can be both; and as an explosive, it is twice as explosive as TNT, and even MDX is only 62% as explosive as nanothermite.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  150. Sparkon says:

    My post above answers your question.

    No it doesn’t.

    Nanothermite can be both; and as an explosive, it is twice as explosive as TNT, and even MDX is only 62% as explosive as nanothermite.

    Prove it.

  151. @Sparkon

    See post 107 where I cited the applicable part of the Harritt and Jones paper.

    I tried to post the graph but was not able to. Maybe you can do it.

    Here is the paper.

  152. bjondo says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    My memory remembers a lean

    then the floors below collapse.

    Straight down.

    With the leaning portion screaming

    all the way… straight down.


  153. @Sparkon

    Jeff Prager is certainly no unbiased source and is just another of CIA George Tenet connected VT
    founder Gordon Duff’s pack of rabied dogs with an agenda.To my surprise after so any vicious attacks on Christopher Bollyn,Prager recently, out of the blue, apoligized to Bollyn and acknowledged his research was foremost among 9/11 investigaters as it has been and is long before VeteransToday came along and attempted to highjack it.
    Even if Duff and Prager and James Fetzer or even Gilad Atzmon and Kevin Barrett all believed Bollyn was wrong about thermite and it was ‘mini-nukes’ or whatever that downed the WTC – THAT WOULD STILL BE NO EXCUSE TO SLANDER BOLLYN WHO HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING 9/11 AND ZIONIST CONNECTIONS LONG BEFORE THEY CAME ON THE SCENE WITH THEIR HORSE SHIT.And all are a distraction from the fact that Israelis including Gilad’s relative Menachem Atzmon had control of Logan Airporty and flights 11 and 175 that may or MAY NOT have impacted the WTC on 9/11/01.
    The only reason Bollyn even bothered to mention Prager whose writing on 9/11 would not otherwise been worthy enough to even comment upon by the likes of Bollyn was because of Prager’s and Duff’s vicious uncalled attacks upon Bollyn.And whether it was thermite,mini-nukes or conventional explosives or as the official story goes,it was airplanes piloted by partying cocaine snorting Saudi Islamics led by an Egyptian named Mohamed Atta -the airplanes were guarded by the responsibilty of convicted money launderer Menachem Atzmon and his ICTS International with direct ties to and with Bibi Netanyahu and Israeli governent intelligence,as Bollyn has made clear for any years before CIA and money laundering suspect Gordon Duff and his motely crew ever came on the scene to tout theselves as the final authorities on 9/11.

    I have had direct email communication with Duff in which he told me of his close connections to Tenet who in turn is connected to the penny stiock,bitcoin,etc.,prooting scu of Agora Inc. Baltiore.As is Ron › who-is-jeff-prager
    Who is Jeff Prager? | Christopher Bollyn
    Jul 29, 2013 – Joe Arpaio, “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” is looking for Jeffrey J. Prager. Is Jeffrey J. Prager the same Jeff Prager who claims that mini-nukes …

    Below link is a humorous attack on me by a hoard of anonymous posters defending Duff and penny stock fraud……….Can you believe at the time of the Libya invasion Duff claimed we should kill Gaddaffi and slaughter Libyans because Israel didn’t want us to !? That’s who Kevin Barrett and
    I guess Gilad Atzmon still associate with ! Duff appears to be associated with a Mr. Bud Burrell who is in turn associated with the Overstock.con loon Patrick Byrne who promoted the lie that their penny stocks were ‘naked shorted’ by a ‘Sith Lord’ and if I didn’t believe it they would torture and murder me! There’s a lot more.You can’t make this stuff up,ha.Believe it or not ex SEC Chair Chris Cox sided with them and claimed the entire stock market collapsed in 2008 due to ‘naked short selling’,a term made up in 2002 by James Dale Davidson founder of CIA and Rothshild connected Agora Inc. who employed William Colby at the time of his mysterious death. › 2011/07/03 › confusion-in-libya
    Confusion In Libya | PolitOccult
    Jul 3, 2011 – I had a great chuckle this morning perusing Gordon Duff of Veteran’s Today’s … I had written about ex CIA Chief George Tenet and his In-Q-Tel penny … Far from being some kind of “truth-teller”, pile-of-poop- Ryals has never ..

  154. onebornfree says: • Website

    All you have done here is to repeatedly demonstrate that you believe in the authenticity of the exact same entirely unverified [i.e. never forensically challenged/questioned by the individuals /institutions you trust/admire], photos and footage that those same individuals/institutions trust, merely because its been somehow , in your tiny mind, now “verified”as “authentic”, simply because another mysterious group of individuals who have never themselves been either seriously investigated nor cross-examined, claim that they witnessed the exact same events in person. 😂

    It doesn’t get any stupider than that , but, in your defense, this is to date the standard operating procedure for 99% of 9/11 “investigations” to date, regardless of whether they are by “serious” “scientific” institutions or individuals, or by non-scientific laymen.

    But by all means carry on with your meaningless drivel, cuz I needz my entertanemunt! 🤪

    “Regards” onebornfree {a “Nobody”}

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  155. @Sparkon

    Wikipedia says it is an explosive.

    Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.

    One of the early discussions, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had, was concerning the usage of thermobaric weapons and whether they could have been used for demolition since they have a yield that is between conventional and nuclear weapons. This was a well known suspicion. And when we learned that nanothermites could be thermobaric that seemed to satisfy the suspicion of many. And it satisfied me.

  156. Rurik says:

    seconds into its own footprint. Oh but wait, Lucky Larry said they decided “to pull it.”

    Our Zio-masters must really get a chuckle out of the shit they’re able to get away with.


    Too true, gsjackson, too true.

    Occassionally i'll turn on the jew-tube, (just antenna), and something like Seinfeld will be on, and so I'll watch for a little while, and you'd be amazed how often they're openly mocking the goyim.

    whether these media co-conspirators are useful idiots who have just wit enough to figure out what they can and can’t say, or are they actively in on the plans, or are they bribed or blackmailed like the pols? Maybe they fall into all three categories.

    Lucre, I suspect mostly.

    Most media personalities have an acute awareness of just how mediocre they actually are. They all intuitively know that success in media, is entirely due to your willingness to go along, to get along.

    Same with politics. How well would someone like Hunter Biden fare in the world, were it not for daddy’s political connections? A complete loser, but he struts the globe like an oligarch, because he knows the right people. And is willing to **** the right *****.

    When a politician or celebrity sell out, they’re only doing so because they see that the real world can be a tough place, and none of them want to end up making direct marketing calls for gas and grocery money.

    You’ve got to think Zion has a nose for such types and steers them into the clutches of the Jeffrey Epsteins.

    Ron Unz once speculated that if a person were ambitious, and wanted wealth, celebrity and/or power, that perhaps the easiest way to accomplish that, would be to walk into the offices of powerful, behind the scenes people (IDK, Sheldon or Soros, or something), and hand them a video of themselves doing something unspeakable to like a child, or something. Some kind of proof of an unforgiveable crime, and they very might well end up as potus.

    I suspect that he’s right about that.

    In that vein, is it just me, or do we all wonder what it is that motivates Fredo, to do articles like this.

    Click bait? Would he publically abase himself for ‘click bait’?

    • Agree: 2stateshmustate
    • Replies: @2stateshmustate
  157. @ThereisaGod

    You are absolutely correct. 3 sky-scrapers falling at free fall speed into their own footprints on the same day due to what the government says were furniture fires is impossible. There’s no way around this.
    Anyone who has seen videos of buildings being imploded by planted explosives can also see the incredible similarity to what happened on 911.

    911 was another Israeli/Jew false flag attack on the US to create hatred towards Arabs, Muslims and Persians so that dumbed down Americans would accept another lunatic war in the ME. As well as to install an already prepared police state in the US.

  158. @Rurik

    Makes you wonder what they got on Fred.

  159. @Sparkon

    Here is the patent on nanoengineered explosives which was granted in 1996:

    Very interesting in that it is from Lawrence Livermore where Jones worked previously. If I recall correctly he mentioned in a video that he knew the lab was working on nanoexplosives.

    Here is a quote from the patent indicating that thermite is one of the things that is a candidate for nanotechnology:

    For example, the reaction of Al and Fe2 O3 to produce Al2 O3 and Fe is referred to as the Thermite reaction, and it has been used for many years in metallurgical processes, such as welding.

  160. ruralguy says:

    The independent tests that you mentioned revealed that the presence of nano-thermite. But, because there was much water, iron oxide (rust), aluminum, iron, and aluminum oxide in the demolished building site, there was much natural thermite reduction oxidation throughout the site. So, you can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nano-thermites to maliciously take down the building.

    I think the probability that the hijacked planes weakened and fell the structure is quite high, given the extensive tests and analysis by the NIST. But, in every trade, especially engineering, 90% of the people doing the work make serious mistakes or are incompetent. If their work was not peer reviewed or even more importantly if they were not following standardized procedures that was monitored by QA checks, then their work should be rejected, because we know from much experience too many errors happen in non-rigorous testing and analysis like this. Given all of this, I’d say the jets “probably” brought down the building, but we simply can’t say it was “certainly” brought down only by the jets. I also think any starting point for disagreement about this should be the rigor of the NIST testing.

  161. augusto says:

    Mr. Reed I read dozens of articles and various books on the nine eleven things.
    And have never found any of the running thruthers – who did not put in front of all explanations two things they demand, first and foremost:
    1- a new complete, independent investigation on the 9/11 story
    2- that there is no way whatsoever by which the US govt story and the official investigation might be acceptable. And that it is plainly ridiculous.
    You focus your ironies on the opposing explanations.
    I THINk it s much easier to stick on this attitude of yours – not opposing the infantile govt’s story instead – a simple intelectual dishonesty.
    By the way mr reed, a new from.scratch.starting investigation will need a bunch of physical proofs – on equivalent steel bars and girders for example… Equivalent bcs the original ones were shipped to Shangai by the very ones you avoid to slightly put a blame on, pas vrai?

  162. @Sparkon

    Here is a paper from the Journal of 9/11 studies titled the Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermite.

    These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that. Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

    This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are high-tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.

    The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.

    It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that —

    “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus” (Gash et al 2002),.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  163. @ruralguy

    Actually Jones performed a test to rule that out. Here is what he said about that argument.

    For example, Frank Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on “rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions.”

    So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum onto pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no “violent thermite” reactions seen at all. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal, since the heat released from any possibly short-lived exothermic did not even compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with liquid aluminum.

    And even NIST suggested other mechanisms such as a mixture with organics and Jones refuted that as well.

    “NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 °C and 640 °C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 °C) in the vicinity of the fires. “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. “Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery.”

    “However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.”

    I read the word “can” in the NIST report and as a scientist wanted to perform experiments. Why didn’t NIST do the experiments before making that statement (or did they)? Did they even try to mix aluminum with organics and pour the mixture out (like the flowing material at the South Tower) to show that it not only “can” but “will” emit an “orange glow”?

    We decided to perform the experiment ourselves. The very next day after reading the NIST fact sheet in August 2006, a colleague and I performed experiments with aluminum mixed with organic materials, mostly wood chips. The flow was silvery and simply did not resemble the orange liquid which poured from the south tower. The organics burned quickly when added to the molten aluminum. The ash floated on top of the aluminum liquid.

    A young physics professor told me that he couldn’t believe NIST would not have done the experiment to see if this worked – that one “can” get an “orange glow” by adding organic ash to aluminum. So we did another set of experiments and he joined the effort. This time we used wood ash from my wood-burning stove, pieces of carpet, plastic chips, later glass, and melted it all together with molten aluminum. [By the way, my wood-burning stove is made of steel and I don’t worry a bit that it will melt!] The young physicist doggedly stirred and stirred the mix with a long-bladed screwdriver. He tried to mix the organics in with the molten aluminum, but they would not mix in! It’s like oil andwater, the organics tend to float and separate from the molten aluminum. And then in the end we poured the concoction out and the flow still looked silvery. He agreed with that because he saw it. Silvery, not orange. So much for the NIST Fact Sheet30 which states that “the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow.”

    If NIST can tell us how to do this trick, we will do the experiment again to test their suggestion. Meanwhile, we have observed that the organics float to the surface but do not make a uniform orange glow. Conclusion: poured out molten aluminum looks silvery (even if heated to the point where iron glows yellow/orange) and does not give the orange glow seen at the South Tower in the flowing material (even when mixed with organic materials).

    These quotes are from pages 70 and 71 but you might want to back up a couple pages and read about what other tests they did with molten aluminum.

    And there is also the issue of the iron microspheres. They could never create iron microspheres in any natural way. So you might read that section as well which begins on page 76.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  164. @ruralguy

    Good,then-you think-we-should-be-focusing-on-Netanyahu’s-Likud-Party-money-launderer
    Menachem Atzmon-whose-Huntleigh-airport-rent-a-cops-and-Shin Beit-execs allowed those
    planes to take off from Logan Airport Boston in the first place.How in heil can an Israeli convicted
    of money launderingin his own country incorporate in Joe ‘the Catholic Zionist’ Biden’s state of Delaware and operate a public company in the first place ? Much less one involved in guarding U.S. airports ?
    ICTS International provided no video surveillance to even document Mohamed Attas and his merry Saudi terrorists boarding the planes and they weren’t even listed on airport documents as passengers !

  165. Sparkon says:

    Please read again my comment #105.

    Only real-world demonstrations — and nothing else — could ever convince me that nanothermite is a high explosive. Try to understand that point because I’m not budging from it.

    If nanothermite had anything like its purported explosive properties, it should have been easy by now for one of the many 9/11 nanothermite advocates or enthusiasts to run a demonstration and blow something to smithereens with it. Since that hasn’t been done, and since the science really isn’t there — read below — I think the entire idea of nanothermite as a high explosive is a big steaming crock of you-know-what:

    “… a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite…is much too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers.”

    What does other peer-reviewed scientific literature have to say about nanothermite? “Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials,” Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke, identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the WTC dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, and this velocity is much too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

    Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!
    9/11 Scholars Forum
    T Mark Hightower, August 24, 2011

    IOW, It’s a big, fat Nanothermitic Nothingburger

  166. @davidgmillsatty

    One more thing. You mentioned electricity as possible factor. What electricity? It was out after the plane strike.

    • Replies: @ruralguy
  167. @Sparkon

    Certainly, if that is true, you have a good point. Since that is new to me, I will check it out.

    But regarding why hasn’t somebody done a large test? How much would the stuff cost to make and how big a thing do you need to blow up to make the point.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  168. @onebornfree

    Well, you got me to read the link.
    “there wasn’t even a peep from the families of the victims who were inside these alleged planes”
    On 9/18/07, 14 families of passengers from Flights 93 and 175 settled with United and an airport security contractor for undisclosed sums.
    At least 90 wrongful death suits have been filed by families of 9/11 passengers.

    The passengers and crews that died on the flights are public information, and many have appeared at public 9/11 events. There are family support groups and associations.

    Find any one name, and prove that the person is still alive or never existed.

    The planes each have detailed histories, to go along with their publicly known registration numbers.

    Show that N612UA, N591UA, N334AA or N644AA still exist somewhere, or that those aircraft never existed. Or that different aircraft took off from the originating airfields that morning.

    If you want to see physical evidence of those planes, there is actually a museum for that. You could do some sleuthing and show that the serial numbers were faked. It would make you a truther hero.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  169. Fred, why don’t you just admit you are a Mossad agent? You are probably the Israeli demolition expect responsible for the 55th floor.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  170. @davidgmillsatty

    Looking at the article, it seems that the Hightower agrees with the demolition hypothesis when he says:

    However, the explosive effects observed in the destruction call for a further explanation.

    He also implies that Jones and Harritt make the claim that only nanothermite was used as an explosive and they don’t say that.

    They say this:

    Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues.

    And this was the conclusion of the paper:

    “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

    Both quotes are on page 29.

    So they don’t say that nanothermite was the only explosive. They only say that what they tested was.

    Going back to the graph cited on page 27 you will note two things. Nanothermite according to this graph has a higher yield by volume (the numbers I cited) and I see now that it has a lower yield by mass. So if it has a higher yield by volume, it still would qualify as a energetic.

    And frankly, I think Jones and Harritt have a point that the military may have found a way to make it more explosive than published results and are keeping those results secret. I think it dumb to assume that the military would let a secret like this out if they don’t want the world to know the capability of the explosives they have invented. If you look at the patent for nanoexplosives that I cited, and the patent was owned by the military initially, that patent is extremely vague.

    There is also the possibility that the nanothermite involved was made by some other lab than one in the US. So who knows what might have been invented elsewhere in private or state labs.

    Furthermore if you look at Figure 29 of their paper, (page 25) the red gray chips were much more energetic than a “trace obtained for a known super-thermite” which they also tested as a control.

    So I am not totally convinced by Hightower’s argument. Maybe Hightower missed this part of their paper.

    But I think the important point is that both Hightower and Jones and Harritt agree that it was a demolition and not a gravitational collapse. Hightower seems to be concerned that this could derail the 9/11 truth movement and I don’t buy that at all.

  171. @Sparkon

    I wrote a long reply and a spam notification came up. I will see if it posts or not. If not I will reconstruct it.

  172. @Sparkon

    Curious- why do so many people take a position that it has to be one method only, to the exclusion of all others?

    If Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones tell me they found evidence of Nano-thermite in the dust, I believe them. That doesn’t exclude other technologies that we do know about, and a whole bucketload that we don’t know about.

    The Davey Jones battlefield nuke was operational in 1962. That leaves 39 years of advances between that date and 911. Surely it’s not unreasonable to assume there have been large advances since then?

    In the mid 1990’s, I met an eccentric guy who came in the shop where I worked at time. He was buying an unusual and rare piece of equipment from us. His name was John Hutchinson. I can’t state with first hand knowledge the results of his experiments, but I can state that I met him. I can also state that people I worked with (who I had no reason to disbelieve) told me that they watched him wirelessly light things on fire at distance using the equipment he bought from us.

    So if a guy in his apartment can create such unbelievable things, what can of multi-trillion dollar state create over a period of years?

  173. @Sparkon

    I will make another post that gets to the nitty gritty.

    On page 25 of the Harrit paper is a graph. They tested the red gray chips against a commercial control of super thermate.

    The results were that the red gray chips show peak watts/gram at slightly over 10 at 430 C and the super-thermate commercial control at peak watts/gram of slightly under 5 at 530C.

    So that raises real questions about the literature. How this doubling of watts/gram translates into meters/second, I don’t know. But obviously the red gray chips were far more powerful than what is available for testing in labs and likely far more than 895 m/sec. I would assume at least double, but if logarithmic, far more.

    So clearly Harritt and Jones have a point about military secrecy. I am not sure that I buy the arguments on either side. Who really knows why the military keeps a secret?

    It is not really important in this case. Harritt and Jones still seem to have proved the red gray chips were far more energetic than Hightower claims the literature said they could be.

  174. Fred: OK, Boomer.

    Everyone else regarding 9/11: All three buildings were intentionally demolished. The scary terrorists in hijacked planes crashing into them was cover. The first two went off without a hitch and the buildings dramatically fell. WTC7 was a fuck up– the passengers on flight 93 fought back and it crashed into a field instead. The building was “pulled” anyway to destroy evidence (like being wired for demolition) before the building could be inspected by any civilian authorities, and then there was almost a complete media blackout. I watched the TV same as everyone else, and I didn’t even know WTC 7 was also destroyed until around 2003 when civilians started tearing apart the official narrative. There are many in America today who STILL don’t know that a third building fell. Why? Because it’s the elephant in the room.

    That’s the real story. All the stuff about CGI or nuclear attacks or space reptilians is schizo nonsense, and I wouldn’t be shocked if a lot of those theories were manufactured specifically to discredit and drown out any real public discourse on this matter.

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  175. Vetran says:
    @Adrian E.

    Why take this extraordinary effort with planes and suicide pilots in order to distract from the explosives

    FYI, airplanes don’t need (suicide) pilots anymore … They can be flown remotely at least since 1984, using the same kind of technology of the UAV or drones.

  176. Vetran says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I don’t think you’d find too many Deep State types, Israelis, or whoever, to fly suicide missions.

    Why on Earth you need suicidal pilots when planes can be flown remotely? See my previous post!

  177. Sparkon says:
    @Kloss Tummybag

    the first two went off without a hitch and the buildings dramatically fell. WTC7 was a fuck up– the passengers on flight 93 fought back and it crashed into a field instead…That’s the real story. All the stuff about CGI or nuclear attacks or space reptilians is schizo nonsense.

    Nice Hollywood, but it’s wrong.

    Mr. “Let’s Roll” Todd Beamer’s cell phone made over a dozen calls well after Flight 93 was said to have crashed. The FBI got Beamer’s cell phone records from Verizon, so that whole story about Flt. 93’s passengers fighting back is just nonsense.

    On September 29, 2001, the FBI received detailed records from Verizon’s wireless subscriber office in Bedminster, NJ, that Todd Beamer’s cell phone made 19 outgoing calls after the alleged 10:03 AM crash time of Flight UA 93. This fact, along with the sixth one, [the phone remained connected long after UA 93 crashed] indicates either that the man self-identified as Todd Beamer was not on UA 93, or Tod Beamer’s cell phone was not on the flight, or this flight did not crash.

    Additionally, UA 93 was still responding to ACARS data well after its alleged crash time, and was tracked by that service to the vicinity of Champaign, Illinois, a long way from Shanksville.

    Klaus Tummybag also claimed:

    “That’s the real story. All the stuff about CGI or nuclear attacks or space reptilians is schizo nonsense.”

    Unfortunately, onebornfree has tried to seize ownership of CGI discussions here at UR. Like all parrots, he gets some things right, but he also gets some things wrong. For example, he claimed above that Dr. Fetzer didn’t do any frame-by-frame analysis of any 9/11 video. In fact it was Jim Fetzer’s frame-by-frame work showing there was no deceleration in the image of UA 175 seemingly crashing into WTC 2 that played a big role in finally bringing me around to the no-planes theory.

    But it was CNN videographer Michael Hezarkhani’s iconic shot of UA 175 half-in, half-out of WTC 2 with no reaction from either, that finally sealed the deal for me.

    It’s computer generated imagery – CGI

    Image: Michael Hezarkhani, CNN

    911 Planes Hoax

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  178. ruralguy says:

    In a reduction-oxidation reaction, such as the thermite reaction, two half reactions can occur that are often separated by a distance. For this to occur, there needs to be a conductor, such as non-distilled water or a metal surface. The reaction can be quite slow, not fast and explosive as you are describing. Much rusting occurs through redox reactions.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  179. George 2 says:

    The supporters of the government explanation of the events on 09-11-2001, like to say skeptics of the explanation are always pushing the “Inside Job” theory. Most credible people who do not believe the official story only point out that some or all of the events did not happen the way the government says they did. That is not saying it was an inside job. The controllers just repeat that meme to discredit those who don’t believe the government BS.

    The government almost never tells the truth about any significant event. Remember the Las Vegas shooting? Remember Jeffery Epstein?

  180. onebornfree says: • Website

    Sparkon says: “he [onebornfree]claimed above that Dr. Fetzer didn’t do any frame-by-frame analysis of any 9/11 video. In fact it was Jim Fetzer’s frame-by-frame work showing there was no deceleration in the image of UA 175 seemingly crashing into WTC 2 that played a big role in finally bringing me around to the no-planes theory.”

    FYI, Fetzer didn’t do any of the original frame by frame video analysis.

    Either he didn’t know how to, or he deliberately avoided it. He just drew attention to others research that he had been made aware of.

    The most prominent researchers of all of the what I call “plane into building” videos back in 2007-8 were, in my opinion, “Killtown”, Simon Shack, and Ace Baker, all of whom Fetzer was aware of ,and whose research he tried to commandeer and take some credit for, when all he actually did was bring their research to others attention. [I was already aware of it].

    I actually appeared on Fetzers radio show 3 times in total [back in the day] , and he continued [and continues to this day] to deny the fakery of all of the original US MSM “live” imagery broadcast that day, including all of the original broadcast tower”collapse” imagery, although, illogically, he apparently now understands [if I understand him correctly] that the Fox5 Sequence [analyzed by Simon Shack, below] , is also wholly fake.☹️

    He has even claimed that: “….Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic..”:

    Killtowns short ,2007-8 : “Air Versus Skyscraper” analysis of the Evan Fairbanks wholly fake, “amateur” , “perchance”, video sequence is still a classic :

    …as is Simon Shacks 2007-8″ Nosed Out” analysis of the wholly fake, “live broadcast” Fox5 sequence:

    Sparkon says: “CNN videographer Michael Hezarkhani”

    Wrong again 😏. Hezarkhani was not a “CNN videographer” [His fake footage was broadcast on CNN, however] . He was [allegedly] an Israeli diamond merchant who “just happened to be” on boat in the river, and who “just happened ” to have his trusty “amateur”camera up, tripod-ready, pointing in the right direction, and who “just happened ” to be able to miraculously track an aircraft allegedly moving at 500 mph. 😂

    “Regards,” onebornfree
    Onebornfree’s 9/11 Research Review:

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  181. bjondo says:

    Some sort of explosive(s) was/were used
    by Israel and America’s traitors on 9/11/01
    to bring down towers 1,2,7.
    1 and 2 in a spectacular show to create
    fear, anger and hate.
    Targets preselected.

    #6, others???

    Shanksville plane most likely shot down.
    Probably meant to hit tower 7.

    Like the tilt before collapse, Shanksville
    shows Israel and traitors not infallible.
    Don’t need to be. Media and govt power
    can lie and get away with the lies.

    So many mouths quickly yammering, “AlQ”,
    all flapping tongues Jew: Hauer, Barak, Bremer (kosher certified).

    Anthrax part of 9-11.
    Like planes and flames,
    no Arabs participating in anything other
    than a very minor, clueless role. If that.

    Arabs did not get rid of crime scene evidence.
    Arabs did not delay, under fund, manipulate
    the commission, “investigation”.

    Bush mostly likely clueless: a moron whose
    righteous anger would be needed for war.

    All important points of 9-11 occupied by Jew
    or Jew advising, controlling traitors.

    Way too much keyboarding.
    My fingers are blistered.


    • Replies: @bjondo
  182. onebornfree says: • Website

    Yeah, ok, you win.

    I agree, investigative “scientists” do not need to forensically scrutinize any/all imagery before using it as unassailable “proof” of any of their their 9/11 hypothesis’, and they also do not need to ever thoroughly investigate the history/backgrounds of any/all alleged “eyewitnesses” to events depicted in any of those “genuine” photos and videos.

    Got it ! 🤣 . Happy now?

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  183. Sparkon says:

    FYI, Fetzer didn’t do any of the original frame by frame video analysis

    Sparkon says: “CNN videographer Michael Hezarkhani”

    Wrong again 😏. Hezarkhani was not a “CNN videographer” [His fake footage was broadcast on CNN, however.

    Hezarkhani’s video was used in a CNN special. He may have been a freelancer, or stringer, but how else would you describe him? In any event, it’s a trivial point. Don’t strain yourself trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    The convincing video analysis of UA 175 I read was written by Jim Fetzer. Period. It does not matter if some other video technician extracted the individual frames, or if Fetzer knows how to do that, or not, or even if he was the first to comment.

    In the same way, I certainly didn’t take that damming Hezarkhani still frame with UA 175 seemingly plunging into WTC 2, nor am I the first to isolate it or comment about it. Nevertheless it has earned its place in my NPT portfolio as a powerful illustration that the 767 videos were generated with CGI.

    I have a fairly good idea how that was done, and I’ve written at length here in the past about the capabilities of Princeton Video’s L-VIS, and the warnings from CBS execs about this software’s potential for abuse, but neither you, nor Shack, nor Baker, nor Killtown — to my knowledge — has ever said one peep about it.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  184. Currahee says:

    Thanks, Fred.

    I watched the second plane hit.

    The subsequent collapse of the towers was, to me, astonishing. But I had never seen a skyscraper collapse.

    The emergence of the Truther movement is even more astonishing.

    • Replies: @Tony Ryals
  185. @ruralguy

    But you will not get microspheres from that.

  186. @onebornfree

    Thank you for giving me the platform to inform people on this website who may not know. Without prompting from the disinformationists I would have little incentive to set the record straight.

    I will let people here be the judge of our comments.

  187. @Max Blancke

    This is the same kind of thinking that prevails in all of these people who believe there were no victims in these mass murders.

    There are no funerals, there are no graves, people on social security are still getting their checks, etc., etc, etc., those who were injured never went to hospitals, had no medical bills, and on and on and on.

    And then ultimately they get sued by the victims and then they want to complain about how unfair that is and that it violates their freedom of speech.

  188. @Currahee

    So you think the Israelis of ICTS International who guarded Logan Airport Boston on 9/11 and who also allowed Richard Reid ‘the Islamic shoebomber’,( who they helped him travel to Israel pre 9/11), to board American Airlines shortly after 9/11 did a good job !?

    9/11:ezra harel death,menachem atzmon inherits rostock port,germany

    (Ezra Harel along with Menachem Atzmon and ex Israeli agents was responsible for secuity of Logan Airport,Boston on September 11,2001,(9/11),when two planes fro that airport are alledged to have been highjacked by Saudi terrorists and crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City.Menachem Atzmon appears to still have Rostock Germany port ownership after it was sold to Euroports where at least once a radioactive shipping scandal occured.Not clear how Harel ‘inherited Rostock that was bought with proceeds of financial fraud as well.Ezra Harel’s Robert Maxwell-ian death by heart attack “while sailing on a yacht off the Spanish coast”.)

    Ezra Harel was a spooky businessman. Reputedly the surname of Harel “is famous in the annals of the Mossad”.[1]


    He was in the airport security business with Menachem Atzmon.[2][3]


    In January 2003, he was reported as the controling shareholder in Rogosin Enterprises to be “the most hated businessman” of 2002 after some extremely sharp business practice.[4] In May 2003 he was detained by the Israel Securities Authority on suspicion that he caused Rogosin Enterprises to collapse.[5] He owned a 65% stake in ICTS International when he reportedly suffered a fatal heart attack “while sailing on a yacht off the Spanish coast”.[6]

    May 27, 2003 12:00 AM

    The Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court yesterday remanded Ezra Harel, the former owner of Rogosin, for three days, and did the same to Harel’s father, 76-year-old Aryeh Mualem, who served as chairman of the failed company’s board of directors. The two are suspected of fraud and breach of trust.

    In his ruling, issued at 1:30 A.M. yesterday, Magistrate Yehezkel Harel (no relation to the suspects) said that there existed “a reasonable suspicion linking the suspects to the crimes attributed to them.” The two were then taken to the Abu Kabir lock-up, where Securities Authority investigators continued interrogating them yesterday morning.

    Another suspect in the affair, Menachem Atzmon, was released on NIS 3 million bail. Atzmon, a former Likud Party treasurer, was Harel’s business partner at the time the alleged crimes occurred.

    Another possible subject of the investigation is how a deal in which Harel and Rogosin bought Germany’s Rostock port was approved. To finance the deal, Harel and Atzmon obtained a 17 million-mark loan from Rogosin; Rogosin then received an option to buy 25 percent of the port in exchange for forgiving the loan. Rogosin eventually exercised this option, which left Harel and Atzmon owning 75 percent. Thus Rogosin wound up as the minority shareholder despite having put up all the money, while Harel and Atzmon acquired a controlling stake using Rogosin’s funds. Today, the Rostock shares are considered Rogosin’s principal asset, but they were mortgaged to Bank Hapoalim as security for a $15 million loan in 2001.

  189. Boys, boys…go easy on Fred…he’s still ruminating Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide…

  190. “Now, Building Seven. Why blow it up at all?”

    Why murder General Soleimani? Why starve thousands of Venezuelans to death? Why withdraw from the INF treaty and take us back to the most dangerous days of the cold war? Why start an arms race that you can’t win? Why escalate the pointless war in Afghanistan? Why?

    Well, I’ll tell you why. They do what they do for two reasons: (1) because they’re evil; and (2) because they know they can get awy with it. Silverstein wanted a shiny new building and he knew there’d be no investigation; so why not?

    “Doing so throws doubt on the desired conclusion that the Towers were knocked down by the airplanes since Building Seven didn’t have an airplane but dropped anyway.”

    Who cares about “doubt”? Certainly not the actual perpetrators of 9/11. If anything they want to create”doubt”; they don’t just want to overthrow the government and the rule of law and wage war on the world, they want to humiliate anyone who can think for themselves.

    BTW, how did the “Arab terrorists” manage to prevent an actual investigation into 9/11 and related issues? And where’s the 9/11 terrorists’ manifesto?

  191. onebornfree says: • Website

    Sparkon says: “In the same way, I certainly didn’t take that damming Hezarkhani still frame with UA 175 seemingly plunging into WTC 2, nor am I the first to isolate it or comment about it. Nevertheless it has earned its place in my NPT portfolio as a powerful illustration that the 767 videos were generated with CGI.”

    Sparkon says: “my NPT portfolio ” Your er, “portfolio”? 🤣 . Nevermind, on with the show……

    Do you understand that Fetzer does not believe that “the 767 videos were generated with CGI.” ?

    He believes that the all of the “plane into building” videos are genuine , and that the plane image is a hologram 🙂.

    Here’s what he commented on my blog in Sept. 2018:

    “I don’t think it’s that difficult to see that John and I agree that no real planes hit either of the Twin Towers but that it was done using holograms” ……….,”we had real video of the image of a plane, which was a holographic projection, as John and I agree.” …..”The trick is to separate the authentic evidence from the fabricated and faked”

    See: “Jim Fetzer and 9/11 Video Fakery – What’s Going On Here?”:

    Regards, onebornfree

  192. The scalpel says: • Website

    Fred should do an article on the conspiracy theory that the supposed Syrian chemical attack in Douma, Syria – the one that led to the huge US cruise missile attack on Syria – was staged, and evidence of this was suppressed by the US government.

  193. bjondo says:

    Now, Building Seven. Why blow it up at all?


    already wired to go, waiting for PA plane,
    and loaded with asbestos to be removed,

    and …

    insurance money.

    Was the amount received near $900 million?

    Since explosives already in place and
    many millions of documents from
    several agencies needed to be destroyed,
    what better way?

    Pentagon missile hit documents wing.

    That damned Shanksville shoot down.

    “Pull it!”


  194. Sparkon says:

    Sparkon says: “my NPT portfolio ” Your er, “portfolio”? 🤣 . Nevermind, on with the show……

    Be careful when taking cheap shots, onebornfree, that you don’t trip over your, er, poor command of English.

    port·fo·li·o – /pôrtˈfōlēˌō/
    1. a large, thin, flat case for loose sheets of paper such as drawings or maps.

    Common synonyms for portfolio – bag, briefcase, case, container, envelope, folder, notebook, valise. I would add “file” and “collection.” There are others. Back when, I carried a physical portfolio both as an art student and as a professional for “show and tell.” I know what “portfolio” means in all its senses. You didn’t, but maybe you do now.

    Don’t show up for a word fight without a dictionary.

    Meanwhile, you are the guy who had previously claimed here at UR that FDR had gone to see Hitler’s autobahns before WWII, and that led to the US Interstate system. That display of historical ignorance is stuck in your portfolio.

    For 9/11 show and tell, I often use Hezarkhani’s still image because a picture really can be worth 1000 words, and I wasn’t in NYC on that day to take any.

    As I recall, Jim Fetzer was previously a regular columnist at VT before he and Gordon Duff got into a dispute about something, and Duff apparently flew into a rage and deleted most of Fetzer’s columns there, resulting in 404 errors for those pages. However, Fetzer at one time was insisting that NPT was divisive and non-productive to the 9/11 truth movement:

    As Professor James Fetzer, a well known 9/11 activist has put it: Even if they (the advocates of NPT) are right, “it hurts the movement.” Many feel that there is so much evidence of government complicity beyond the issue of big passenger jets that diverting attention to the one thing most people believe that they “saw” is not to our tactical and strategic advantage.

    In any event, it doesn’t really matter who said what first, but rather who says it most correctly, right now. If Dr. Fetzer currently thinks holograms were used on 9/11, I would argue he’s mistaken on that point, or perhaps he himself is peddling disinfo. Do you have a link?

    The no planes theory — at least at the Pentagon — was emerging already by 2002 with the publications of Thierry Meyssan’s “9/11: The Big Lie (L’Effroyable imposture), and at the WTC with Gerald Homgren’s “Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept 11” in April 2004:

    Now the Nth [sic] tower crash, the one shown live on TV. Surely this was a real Boeing 767 because we saw it live, and at superficial viewing it certainly appears to be a large jet. However, a frame by frame examination of the video reveals that it is not a 767 or any kind of conventional aircraft. The anomalies are too many to go into in this article, but in summary it was definitely not UA 175.

    According to Holmgren, despite popular misconceptions that many real time videos of the plane striking the South Tower exist, there was only one live video of this plane and that video did not show it hitting the building, but rather it shows the plane passing behind the building “giving the impression that it impacted the hidden face,” an effect easily achieved “with commercially available real time animation technology. The other videos, which seem… to show the plane actually hitting the building did not appear until hours later.”

    Holmgren and Reynolds on No Planes on 911-Exposing the Illusion By Ronald Bleier December 2006

    In any shop producing copy — the written word — use of a dictionary is not only routine, but mandatory. Similarly, in virtually every film or video studio, most analysis of video includes looking at individual frames one by one, so there is nothing novel, magical, unexpected, or exotic about that process, and it’s generally the first thing done with any analysis of film or video, which are both a succession of still images, like Hezarkhani’s.

    To conclude with another note about that Hezarkhani’s image in my #181, please pay close attention to the missing left horizontal stabilizer in that still frame of UA 175 plunging into WTC 2 from Hezarkhani’s video. In the past, I’ve explained here at UR how that could happen, along with disappearing wings etc. on some of the other UA 175 videos from 9/11, due to the limitations of the video insertion software.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  195. Cowboy says:

    Inspector Fred checking the bomb evidence

  196. onebornfree says: • Website

    “If Dr. Fetzer currently thinks holograms were used on 9/11, I would argue he’s mistaken on that point, or perhaps he himself is peddling disinfo. Do you have a link?”

    Do I have a link? Can you even read?

    The link to my article was in my previous post, you silly person. That article has a comment by “anonymous ” that I in part re-quoted in that previous post here [its obviously Fetzer if you bother to read the original at my blog].

    My article also has links to the original Fetzer article that prompted my post, plus to the John Lear article that Fetzer had republished at his blog. End of story.

    “…please pay close attention to the missing left horizontal stabilizer in that still frame of UA 175 plunging into WTC 2 from Hezarkhani’s video.”

    ” please pay close attention”? ??

    Who the fuck do you think you’re talking to here? I’ve been aware of all of the glaring aberrations in the Hezarkhani sequence [and the Fairbanks,Fox 5 , and all of the 30 odd other “live” plane into building” video sequences] since 2007, and of Holmgrens and Meyssans research prior to that .

    Get a grip, fer cryin’ out loud, mister “NPT portfolio” 😂

    “regards”, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  197. More good news for Freddie from his pRESIDENTE Alfred E Trump – brain damage is good you as long as it doesn’t effect movement of your arms and legs !

    If brain damage caused you to believe Arabs were dancing and celebrating in NY and New Jersey on 9/11 rather than Israelis so much the better because Israelis are our friends.

    Various health and medial groups for years have been trying to raise awareness about the seriousness of brain injuries, including concussions.

    “I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen,” Trump said. “I’ve seen people with no legs and no arms.”


    President Alfred E Trump,unable to block publication of news that heavy metals,chloro-floro-carbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons,microplastics( which we’ll now call nano plastics cause that sounds better) will be declared essential nutrients.
    Alfred E Trump wishes to assure Americans he will see to it that it be made available in all bottles of Ronald McDonald Reagan’s favorite vegetable – catchup.As for Freddie – have another glass of that famous Lake Chapala miracle water.Great to wash down that fine pristine Lake Chapala fish with, ain’t it Freddie boy ?

    And with all that fresh methane being liberated from all that fracking in Tex-ass Alfred E Trump says our air is better than ever.(Certainly better than Alfred E Trump’s farts.)As for all that radio-active slag pile from strip mining our last phosphates in Florida,Alfred E Trump only sees another future Trump golf course.What a country.
    No wonder the whole world is jealous and trying to catchup.

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The contamination of U.S. drinking water with man-made “forever chemicals” is far worse than previously estimated with some of the highest levels found in Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans, said a report on Wednesday by an environmental watchdog group.

    The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Some have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems……

    In 2018 a draft report from an office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published……

  198. Sparkon says:

    Your blog is a mess, obf.

    The only mention of holograms there is in a comment by Unknown. He points to two links, Fetzer’s is dead.

    I wanted a link to Jim Fetzer’s blog where he currently supports the theory of holograms used to fake the 767s on 9/11. Not your blog, obf.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  199. Saba says:
    @anno nimus

    Dear Anus,
    Drats….you have found us out. Of course first it’s the butter! Next, the world!
    BTW, we know where you live.

  200. Sparkon says:

    Apparently there was a big dispute about U.S. Army exercise Jade Helm at Veterans Today back in 2015 when Gordon Duff reportedly deleted over 100 of Dr. Fetzer’s columns from VT. Subsequently, or perhaps concurrently, Dr. Fetzer had a page on Blogspot for some time before that page was removed:

    At some point, Dr. Fetzer got his own domain with a search function. Now, I’ve found several articles there after searching for “hologram.” The most recent article is from July 28, 2018:

    Earlier, on May 20, 2015, Fetzer had republished on his current blog one of his articles from VT that Duff had deleted. In the comments under his article, Fetzer notes:”It was deleted along with 149 other articles of mine that appeared there beginning on 5 July 2011 by Gordon Duff, its Senior Editor.”

    In the article — as onebornfree claimed — Fetzer gives credence to the 9/11 hologram theory:

    Since we all saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower on television–and many also claim to have watched it happen with their own eyes–what was actually going on in New York City? What did we see on television or, assuming we take the witnesses at face value, with their own eyes? There are three alternative theories, which involve the use of computer generated images (CGIs), the use of video compositing (VC), or the use of a sophisticated hologram, respectively.

    That third alternative may sound “far out” until you realize that many witnesses claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower with their own eyes, which would have been impossible if VC or CGIs had been the method that was used.

    Well, this issue of UA 175 eyewitness is quite interesting, “assuming we take the witnesses at face value.” Looking again at website 9/11 Planes Hoax, there is a section on WTC 2 eyewitnesses:

    Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%

    One guy working in WTC 2 who claimed to see UA 175 approaching WTC 2 and crash into the building was a Fuji bank executive working in the SW corner of the 81st floor, Stanley Praimnath:

    “The bottom [sic] wing sliced right through my office, and the plane wing is stuck in the office door 20 feet from where I am.”

    Was Praimnath lying, like Pentagon taxi driver Lloyde England? Hmm…how many liars would it take to build a false narrative? If there was at least one liar at the Pentagon, could we assume there may have been liars in or around the World Trade Center on 9/11?

    You should be able to see right away from the diagram that no wing from UA 175 could have been anywhere near Praimnath’s office.

  201. dre says:

    is this guy serious he implies all this nonsense about the amount of chemical to burn through the steel tons of it so he is directly implying that one plane full of jet fuel would suffice bringing down the whole tower at freefall speed ??? idiot

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike, Rurik
  202. “If Truthers do not find these admirable calculations satisfactory, then by all means they should offer others. They may suggest a means of destruction that I have never heard of. The point is that a theory should be physically plausible.”

    Well, look who’s talkin! The South tower “collapsed” only 56 miutes after UA Flight 175 hit it. Even if the building was full of combustible material it is not “physically plausible” that you could raise even one floor’s worth of thermal mass (steel and concrete) up to say, 700 degrees C, in only 56 minutes time unless you literally had blast-furnace-like conditions. I did a rough calculation of this years ago and the air-flow required was over 1*10^6 CFM, IIRC. (In reality it would need to be much higher since I ignored heat lost by conduction and radiation and assumed only 50 % heat loss by convection; which is ridiculously generous).

    Sorry Fred but your cohencidence theory of the WTC collapses is nonsense.

  203. Self righteous Freddy ‘Kruger’ Reed has given lip service to how outrageous it was to invade and rape and loot Iraq and yet never connected the fact that his own lies about 9/11 is what got Iraq raped and looted in the first place.And if the hypoocrcite playing the big ugly American in Mexico with the chump change earned by being a journalistic prostitute for the international financial military industrial complex in the U.S. really believes the U.S. GOVERNNT’S OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY that a couple of planes out of Logan airport brought down the WTC twin towers as well as Building 7 as he claims then why is he silent about the Israelis of ICTS International such as Netanyahu connected Menachem Atzmon who in effect by his own incompetence, (because of course we know he wasn’t conspiring),caused the entire 9/11 fiasco single handely.
    Even Gilad Atzmon has acknowledged that there was something fishy about his relative Menachem Atzmon’s role as ‘security’ for Logan on 9/11 and Freddie Kruger Reed is telling us that the planes he swears brought down the WTC originated from there so when is Fred Kruger Reedgoing to put 2 and 2 togethetr ?
    The very fact that I have been the only one here to have to repeat the fact of who is responsible if we buy Freddy Kruger Reed’s ‘official conspiracy theory’ is sad indeed.It should be both Ron Unz and Gilad Atzmon doing it and educating poor Freddy boy – NOT me! In fact Menachem Atzmon and his Shin Beit ‘security’ experts should be investigated even if if wasn’t the planes that brought down the WTC. And why in heil would Arab terrorist specifically target Israeli guarded airports in the U.S. in the first place when it is Israeli security agents who hate Arabs who would be most likely to spot them and interogate them in the first place !?

  204. Adrian says:
    @Jim Christian


    But you truther-doods have to do BETTER than that. Ya know why? Because those buildings did not fall into their own footprint. They fell into a footprint many, many times the former occupancy of the originals, I don’t know WHERE you get the “original footprint” theory.

    You conveniently forget about WTC7. A Dutch demolition expert, the late Danny Jowenko, was conviced, on seeing the video, that that building came down through controlled demolition. He was quite amazed to hear that it also happened on 9/11 but he thought it conceivable that, with an experienced team of thirty to forty men, it could have been prepared for demolition the same day. However when he heard that there was a fire going on there he was dumbfounded.

    This is the video that convinced Alan Sabrosky that the official story of 9/11 didn’t hold water. He showed it to several former colleagues of his in the military and their universal reaction was rage.

    The NIST story about office fires etc. has been thoroughly tested at the University of Alaska and found to be without merit.

  205. I didn’t even know existed in September 2001 but I found this posted by Freddy Krueger Reed on UR on September 17,2001.He takes time only a week after after American women have just died very agonizing deaths in the WTC as a result of Israelis guarding Logan Airport to insult American women by calling them bimbos and praising Israelis who he calls ‘real men – ‘all the while promoting hatred of Arabs who in truth we have no proof were even at Logan Airport because we have not a single camera recording their presence at Logan Airport Boston on that day.For all Menachem Atzmon’s and Michael Chertoff’s and ICTS International’s braggadoccia about their great Israeli technology they didn’t even have 1980’s Seven-Eleven convenience store technology to film and document Mohamed Atta and his merry band of Saudi terrorists in the airport.And no record of them on a passenger list either for that matter.In the future when I hear the word ‘bimbo’ I won’t think of a blond female,I’ll think about Freddy Kreuger Reed….. :

    The World Trade Center
    The Price Of Pansyhood
    FRED REED • SEPTEMBER 17, 2001

    A few unorganized thoughts regarding the events in New York:

    (1) We lost. Our moral posturing about our degradation is merely embarrassing. We have been made fools of, expertly and calculatedly, in the greatest military defeat the country has suffered since we fled from Viet Nam. The Moslem world is laughing and dancing in the streets. The rest of the earth, while often sympathetic, sees us as the weak and helpless nation that we are.

    The casualty figures aren’t in, but 10,000 dead seems reasonable, and we wring our hands and speak of grief therapy.

    We lost.

    (2) We cannot stop it from happening again. Thousands of aircraft constantly use O’Hare, a few minutes flying time from the Sears Tower.

    (3) Our politicians and talking heads speak of “a cowardly act of terrorism.” It was neither cowardly nor, I think, terrorism. Hijacking an aircraft and driving it into a building isn’t cowardly. Would you do it? It requires great courage and dedication — which our enemies have, and we do not. One may mince words, but to me the attack looked like an act of war. Not having bombing craft of their own, they used ours. When we bombed Hanoi and Hamburg, was that terrorism?

    (4) The attack was beautifully conceived and executed. These guys are good. They were clearly looking to inflict the maximum humiliation on the United States, in the most visible way possible, and they did. The sight of those two towers collapsing will leave nobody’s mind. If we do nothing of importance in return, and it is my guess that we won’t, the entire earth will see that we are a nation of epicenes. Silly cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan will just heighten the indignity.

    (5) In watching the coverage, I was struck by the tone of passive acquiescence. Not once, in hours of listening, did I hear anyone express anger. No one said, coldly but in deadly seriousness, “People are going to die for this, a whole lot of people.” There was talk of tracking down bin Laden and bringing him to justice. “Terrorism experts” spoke of months of investigation to find who was responsible, which means we will do nothing. Blonde bimbos babbled of coping strategies and counseling and how our children needed support. There was no talk of retaliation.

    (6) The Israelis, when hit, hit back. They hit back hard. But Israel is run by men. We are run by women. Perhaps two-thirds of the newscasters were blonde drones who spoke of the attack over and over as a tragedy, as though it had been an unusually bad storm — unfortunate, but inevitable, and now we must get on with our lives. The experts and politicians, nominally male, were effeminate and soft little things. When a feminized society runs up against male enemies — and bin Laden, whatever else he is, is a man — it loses. We have……..

  206. Dear Fred,

    I read your essay – Nine-Eleven by the Numbers – at The Unz Review and would like to direct your attention to the physical evidence compiled by at group of architects and engineers – 3,238 members strong their website can be found at the following link (

    I would also like to introduce you to a gentleman by name of Leroy Hulsey a professor from the University of Alaska Fairbanks College of Engineering and Mines who (along with his team) studied the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 11Sept2001. His credentials can be found at the following link (

    And boy, oh, boy do they have a physical evidence based story for you.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from a report titled:

    “60 Structural Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition “

    Editor’s Note: Since its inception in 2006, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has remained steadfast in its mission of exposing the flaws in the claims made by the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST) — namely, that the impact of two planes and the resulting fires brought down three steel-framed skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. We do scientific, cogent, and comprehensive analyses, backed by forensically-tested, unassailable facts.

    One outcome of our insistence on remaining true to our mission is that our ranks of signatories has swelled from less than a dozen to nearly 3,000 building and technical professionals who are petitioning the government for a new, independent investigation of the catastrophic destruction at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Additionally, over 20,000 citizens have signed the AE911Truth petition, and more than 400,000 supporters have “liked” our Facebook page.

    While much of AE911Truth’s success can be ascribed to the perseverance of its founder and the other members of its board of directors, who have remained focused on the science, none of its achievements would have been possible without the professional credibility lent by an ever-growing contingent of professional signatories: structural engineers. The members of this distinguished group, numbering 60 to date, are experts in the capability of steel-frame structures to resist all kinds of forces. Their courage in stepping up to speak the “inconvenient truth” secures for them a venerable place as “the scientific backbone” of AE911Truth.

    Five years after 9/11, San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, began raising technical questions among his professional colleagues about the destruction of the Twin Towers and 47-story WTC Building 7. He realized that an organized effort by building professionals and scientists was needed to shine light on the government’s false version of 9/11. In the years since founding AE911Truth, Gage has discovered that those who take time to look at the facts overwhelmingly agree that vital questions about the forensic evidence and video testimony remain unanswered by government officials.

    The structural engineers we spoke to are calling for a new investigation into the catastrophic destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on September 11. “The implications of the controlled demolition evidence as outlined on our website are staggering,” says Gage, speaking on behalf of the group’s architects and engineers. “We therefore invite all Americans to examine the science-based forensic evidence very carefully and come to their own conclusions.”

    Lomba’s conclusion, drawn from his initial perceptions and validated by subsequent developments, is clear: “Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.”

    Scott challenges his fellow structural engineers: “The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do we have the courage to broadcast it?”

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from a report titled:

    “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7”

    Project Summary

    This is a study of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001.

    The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

    The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

    The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.There will be a two-month public comment period from September 3 to November 15, 2019, with the final report to be released in early 2020. During this period, we welcome any and all members of the public to submit constructive comments intended to further the analyses and presentation of findings contained in the report. Designated reviewers external to UAF and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will also review the report during this period. Commenters are asked to send their comments in an attached PDF or Word document to [email protected].

    It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building. Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.

    These professionals have placed their reputations on the line in directly rebutting the US governments official explanations of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapses on 11Sept2001 by pointing out mountains of contradictory physical evidence and asking questions
    deemed verboten by the main stream media. The evidence they have uncovered screams out for an independent investigation into the tragic events that occurred that day. Then and only then would it be possible to answer questions as to who was responsible and how
    their plan was carried out.

  207. a.hall says:

    To bring down the Twin Towers , the foundations had to be destroyed first. They were 1,11o Feet high and contained 100,000 Tons of Steel. A 1 Kiloton Nuclear Warhead could have done this. They collapsed in the building`s own `Footprint with small ` Ripple` Charges evident. NYFD Officers reported `Many Interior Explosions`. The Exterior and Interior Concrete was Blasted into Thermoclastic Clouds ,just like Volcanic Eruptions. Fires from the Planes wouldn`t cause Concrete Dust Clouds or a Collapse after just ONE HOUR of burning. The North Tower was hit by the Plane at the Top 26 Floors.
    Heat travels Upwards, NOT Down. Yet it collapsed in about ONE HOUR.
    Conspiracy Theories NOT Necessary; just use your Eyes.

    • Replies: @Tony Ryals
  208. @a.hall

    A LA CONTRARIA – A CONSPIRACY THEORY IS NECCESSARY ! Or you suggesting that ‘ a lone nuker’ just happened to whip up a nuclear bomb in his or her garage,drove it down to the base of the WTC his or herself,then after having remotely nuked it he or she made a crank call to some idiots in the government that he or she was ‘Osama bin Laden’ and that’s how it all happened ? Now that’s a pretty funny conspiracy theory.

    It was the CIA who coined or popularized the term conspiracy theory in the first place to shame anyone who claimed that JFK’s assassination could not have happened without massive collusion between many individuals and governent entities.And they could not have done that without television and newspapers helping or conspiring with them..

    If conspiracies are so hard for you to believe in why do you think we have laws against conspiracies in the first place ? That’s because conspiracies to commit major crimes are very common and in fact could rarely be pulled off by a single individual.

  209. bjondo says:

    metabunk wrong video but has good pic of 6. “Bunk” a good clue.

    Maybe this:

    Don’t always have time to view my own links.


  210. DO says:

    I worked in the twin towers on and off for 3-4 years during the 1980’s and “90’s
    1. there are no catwalks in the ceiling on each floor ( the floors would have had to be 20′ each between decks to support that)
    2. Hung ceilings of that era were not designed or strong enough to carry the weight of a man
    3. lots of security in this building, especially around the freight elevators. Security guys and Port Authority cops.
    Not saying how this all happened or why- just that this could not be the way it was done

  211. Sulu says:

    We may never have full knowledge or accountability as to how the Towers were brought down but one thing is inescapable. The dancing Israelis that were witnessed filming it by several people and were then picked up by the cops prove there was fore knowledge of the event. This is incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy. Since they were Israeli it doesn’t take a math genius like Fred to prove Israel at the very least knew the attack was coming. It is just one more tiny step to make the logical assumption that they knew because they were involved in bringing the Towers down.

    And finally, the obvious question must be asked, Cui bono? When you realize again the country that most benefits from the towers coming down and the U.S. becoming involved in endless Middle East wars is Israel it’s pretty easy to see who brought the Towers down and why, if not how.

    I wonder why Fred refuses to acknowledge this. My guess is that he is not that stupid and is merely being disingenuous for his own selfish reasons. Surely Fred is not more afraid of the Mossad than he is of the Mexican cartels. But he certainly has taken care to insult neither.

  212. Yup says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    I remember watching live seeing it tipping and before i could say it’s going over, it tipped back up when the “pancake” happened at free fall below it and immediately saw it was controlled demolition… like the policies that followed. Didnt see that clip again.

  213. oragne says:

    watch the video if the I-85 bridge collapse in Atlanta
    some plastic pipe stored under the bridge was set on fire by homeless bums, and the bridge collapsed in less than an hour.

  214. Even if Fred was an engineer or architect, his opinion would mean jack compared to over 3,000 real engineers and architects of ae911truth. The THREE skyscrapers collapsed due to pre-planned controlled demolition.

    • Agree: Sulu
  215. johnwho says:

    Obviously the author has never seriously looked at all the info available on 911.
    But I thank you Fred, for calling me a Truther. What does that make you, an Untruther.
    How many time throughout history have Untruthers spat on, denigrated, imprisoned, tortured or murdered Truthers. Practically forever.
    Even many of the people who made up the official version of the story later recanted and called it bunk.

  216. Roanman says: • Website

    Some of your assumptions are just way wrong.

    First, you misunderstand how commercial office space is built and then carved into useful office dimensions.

    In a steel frame building like those at the World Trade Center, the entire floor is finished around the outside and the elevators, then a drop ceiling is hung throughout the entire unit. Above that drop ceiling is anywhere from 2 to 4 feet for chases that deliver conditioned air, power, cable, water and sanitary services to the subject floor and the floor above. Then office areas are finished to suit with interior walls built to the ceiling.

    I don’t know from how much a thermolite charge weighs, but I’d guess less than 10 lbs. But even if it did, it didn’t take all night per charge.

    Then … if you remember the point behind the lease of the port authority to Larry Silverstein’s entity was that the buildings were full of friable asbestos which had to cleaned out. The port authority supposedly either lacked the resources to do a very costly cleanup or maybe just didn’t feel like going through the hassle and not enjoying the property management business, decided to master lease the thing to Silverstein … for big dough.

    Having spent a lifetime doing commercial/industrial/office leases and sales, there are no tiny little deals done in an asbestos building without beau coup inspections of everything but for damn sure asbestos. That requires getting up into the ceiling on a ladder with a mask on and some tools and such and poking around a bunch. The World Trade Center deal would likely have a 90 day minimum and more likely 120 -180 day due diligence period during which time they would have poured over every square foot of the complex “looking for evidence of friable asbestos” then costing out remediation.

    So they walk into a suite with a ladder, lift the ceiling tile, climb up, place a charge, climb down, replace the ceiling tile and move on down the line.

    Piece of cake. Some of the poor bastards that died, probably held the fucking ladder.

  217. 9/11,WTC,LVI Demolition services,Disappearing R&D Contract with U.S. Army

    LVI’s Disappearing R&D Contract with U.S. Army
    March 11, 2019 Christopher Bollyn 9-11 Archive 2019, News & Articles
    March 11, 2019

    LVI Services, a company that provides “total turnkey demolition services,” did extensive asbestos abatement work in the World Trade Center prior to 9-11, according to Engineering News-Record. This photo from the LVI Services website depicts LVI workers doing asbestos abatement on a surface very similar to the corrugated steel floor pans that held the 4-inch thick concrete floors of the Twin Towers. Oddly, Burton Fried, then head of LVI, in an interview with the author, denied that his company had done the work in the Twin Towers.

    LVI Services, a company that provided “total turnkey demolition services,” did extensive asbestos abatement work in the World Trade Center prior to 9-11. It also did about $3 million in R&D work for the U.S. Army in 2000. Having written about this in 2013, I was prompted me to post this update after finding that the documentation about LVI’s contract with the Army no longer appears when searching the website:

    See: Contracts to Contractor(s) “LVI” (FY 2000) – “No records found”

    …but the missing records are found in the Wayback Machine archive:

    The Background

    Immediately after 9-11, a leading engineering magazine in the United States reported that LVI Services, a company that does demolition set-up work, had done extensive asbestos abatement work in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. The following is a brief job description that involved the removal of asbestos floor tiles and other materials from the Twin Towers. Was this the job that LVI had carried out at the World Trade Center?
    Contract WTC-115.310 – The World Trade Center Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Via Work Order Estimate Range: $1,000,000 annually Bids due Tuesday, October 17, 2000.
    (Offered by the Port Authority on September 12, 2000)

    As I pointed out in my 2009 article “Who Put Super Thermite in the World Trade Center”:
    Two days after 9-11, Engineering News-Record (ENR) reported that an asbestos abatement and demolition company called LVI had done extensive asbestos abatement work in the World Trade Center:
    AMEC Inc., Turner Corp. and Bovis Lend Lease were set to assume “lead roles” in the cleanup effort, says Lee Benish, AMEC vice president. “From the very beginning, we’ve been deeply involved with the city department of emergency services,” he says. “They’re sorting through who will be doing what.” LVI Services Inc., New York City, which has done extensive asbestos abatement work on the towers in the past, is involved in similar work now as well as other cleanup efforts.
    In 2000, LVI did about $3 million in R&D work for the U.S. Army, the largest part of the company’s military contract of $3.2 million. records show that LVI did Applied Research and Exploratory Development (R&D) work for nearly $3 million that year. Neither Burton Fried, then head of LVI, nor the company spokesman were willing to discuss the work LVI had done for the U.S. Army.

    Read: “Tracking the 9-11 Insiders to their Rothschild Roots”

  218. aware says:

    Without going through all the comments I see your first premise that all the columns were visible- those aren’t columns they are the exterior “mesh” that surrounded the steel structure and held the windows. Just on this alone I can tell you haven’t done real research, because the box columns were interior in the center and they were massive and held the whole building up. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth- do your homework.

  219. Mark12345 says:

    Fred doesn’t get his columns posted much around the web anymore because the people who used to post him realize he is either one dumb fuck or just controlled opposition? Stay in Mexico Fred,you are not wanted here. By the way for several weeks before the false flag called 911 a company was working on the elevators and elevator shafts in 3 of those buildings. That’s how they placed the charges. BYE Stupid!

Current Commenter

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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave