Don't Think Controlled Demolition Brought the Buildings Down on 9/11? Find a Shrink!

Don't Think Controlled Demolition Brought the... by debunkerbuster

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/07/collapse-rates-of-wtc-consistent-with.html

NIST Video Deceit

by Miragememories » Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:00 pm
the911forum.freeforums.org

Did the NIST, after many years of intensive investigation, with the benefit of all its resources and major funding, perform due diligence in their pursuit of answering the question;
WHY DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE?

After combining their years of engineering research with an analysis the day’s events, was the NIST honest or deceitful in the completeness of their final determinations?

The NIST, through their spokesperson, lead investigator, Shyam Sundar, at a 2008 press conference announcing the conclusion of the WTC 7 investigation, uncompromisingly stated that; “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery”, and that the NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.”

Dr. Sundar, did admit that his organization had a very difficult time finding an engineering hypothesis to explain what occurred at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 to WTC 7.

Given the length of the investigation, the wealth of human resources committed to it, and the degree of difficulty understanding the mechanism behind the total structural failure of WTC 7, it is reasonable to expect that all data pertaining to the building’s structural status for its last remaining hour, would be subject to the most intensive, careful, and methodical engineering scrutiny.

The published evidence shows that the NIST’s primary focus was directed at finding support for their column 79 buckling hypothesis, while dispelling contradictory evidence as lacking sufficient credibility to warrant further investigation.

Case in point, involves the observed activity from northwest face windows on the 13th floor of WTC 7 just prior to its complete collapse.

The NIST hypothesis is anchored in the northeast, where they believe column 79 at the 13th floor lost its lateral support, buckled, and revealed its failure through the visible collapse of the east penthouse.

In passing, the NIST in their final report acknowledged some unexplained activity occurring at the other end of WTC 7 saying that; “Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”

Without any additional data available, this appeared to be a fair assessment. The NIST, using the limited video and photo evidence they had cataloged, determined that there was no visual data to provide an explanation for this “unusual behaviour”.

But was there really only limited video available?

Going over the video evidence provided by the NIST through FOIA, there is good reason to question the veracity of the NIST claim.

A logical place to investigate the NIST contention is to carefully examine the video in question, where “a jet of flames was pushed” from 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face, well away from the east side column 79 location.


Screen captures from the NIST FOIA video. The left frame was captured a few video frames prior to the right frame.

The NIST kept track of all their video data records a large database.

Video records sent to the NIST were cataloged and identified in this database which was used by researchers to locate and analyze clips of interest.

According to their database records, the video that contained the “jet of flames” that occurred close to the time of WTC7’s collapse, was identified as belonging to CBS-Net Dub5.

The NIST cataloger, as shown from their notes, not only observed the “jet of flames”, but also noted a visible “puff of smoke” partially obscured by scan lines created when the original playback tape was deliberately fast-forwarded while it was being copied.



Given the importance of any dramatic data appearing close to the collapse time of WTC 7, it is very odd that the NIST investigators paid so little heed to the “noted” smoke plume, or the fact that it was deliberately obscured by intentional fast forwarding. All they noted was the “jet of flames”, which were also initially obscured by fast forwarding.


Later in the video recording, the sudden jet of flames could not be ignored when they appeared clearly after the person ‘directing’ the NIST copy decided to replay that portion at normal speed.



But that’s not all.

The fast forwarding obscures an even more significant event.

Behind the obscuring horizontal lines induced by fast forwarding, a series of explosive plumes can be seen coming from the direction of the window that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”. Additionally, a white cloud forms near the NW corner and proceeds easterly.



This should have aroused great interest on the part of researchers, but without the benefit of a clean unobscured video copy, they possibly decided further investigation was pointless.

Had the NIST investigators shown more determination, they would have discovered that there was indeed a clean HQ copy of the very same video, without the intentional image obscuration.

The NIST cataloged the video source as CBS, but it appears that CBS licensed its use from the rights holder, FOX. FOX through their subsidiary company, ITN, offer a clean preview copy in flash video format (.flv). A 5-year license for an HQ copy is available at a price determined by the purchaser’s intended usage.

Had the NIST or FEMA officially communicated their interest in the video more earnestly they would have easily discovered the availability of this HQ version.

Given the amount of wandering fire that was observed in WTC 7 on 9/11, it could easily be said that one more was hardly worthy of special attention.

But considering the location and timing, in conjunction with the fact that the most plausible explanation for the implosive collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, this event takes on greater significance.

A controlled demolition by implosion would require that the lower core of WTC 7 be blown out through the intensive use of conventional RDX-like explosives, possibly in the wake of a steel structure-weakening pre-collapse mechanism, like nano-thermite.

Studying the clean copy of the video that the NIST never investigated, several things can be observed;

With difficulty (due to the poor quality of the free public ‘flash video’ preview), a very rapid series of west-to-east dark bursts can be seen behind windows on the 13th floor, just prior to the plumes erupting from previously fire-broken windows. (It is necessary to obtain the full quality original that FOX controls in order to properly see this activity.)

The explosive dark plumes appeared to erupt from the same 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face of WTC 7.



And a lower, rapidly expanding, large white cloud moves east from the west end of the north face of WTC 7.



According to the NIST, this is what followed shortly after these events.

“Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”

YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY THAT WHICH YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY.

The original, X11090122 97672, reference recording, used for this research is only available in preview quality LQ (HQ (high quality) for purchasers), at http://www.itnsource.com.
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/Fo ... X11090122/
Clip #20

The NIST FOIA release; is available as International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA Release_25, Folder: 42A0122 - G25D33
at http://www.911datasets.org

Miragememories

911Debunkers.BlogSpot.com Interview with Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole

Published on Jul 14, 2015

JM Talboo

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com

Jonathan Cole's YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp2d...

This web site is a joint effort by David Chandler (retired physics teacher), Jonathan Cole (professional engineer), and Nathan Flach (video archivist). We are all independent 9/11 researchers, and affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Our goal has been to uncover the truth and shed some light on the events of 9/11, each in our own way.

http://911speakout.org/

AE911Truth Critical Response to NIST Final Report on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
http://ae911truth.org
http://911truth.org

Alex Jones Debunks The So-Called 911 Debunkers

A review of the history of military orders governing response to hijackings casts doubt on the idea that the June 1 order was instrumental in hobbling the military's response on September 11. The June 1 order superseded the 1997 directive CJCSI 3610.01. ³   The 1997 directive also stipulated that the NMCC "forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
The 1997 directive cancels three earlier ones:

• MCM-102-92, 24 July 1992, "Hijacking of Civil Aircraft"
• CJCS MOP 51, 13 April 1992, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Military and Military Contract Aircraft"
• MCM-- 173-90, 14 September 1990, "Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects"

These earlier documents do not appear to be archived on dtic.mil. It would be interesting to learn what policy they mandated for military response to hijackings, and, in particular, whether it required approval by the Secretary of Defense.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/june1.html

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

• Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
• Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
• Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
• Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense - NORAD Section Update 12/24/2014

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

• Click here and decide for yourself.

Fallcies of the 911 debunkers

Published on May 26, 2015
Meta Self

I go over some of the common fallacies committed by so called 9/11 truth debunkers when debating 9/11 skeptics.

In a nutshell, they ignore the content of truthers arguments or create misrepresentations of the claims which call the official story a lie.

Debunking the 9/11 'Debunkers' - The Debunker's "Building Design Differences" Argument!

ManAgainstCrime
Published on Oct 16, 2014

Debunking the 9/11 'Debunkers'. (1) The Debunker's "Building Design Differences" Argument!

Debunker : "The WTC buildings can't be compared to other high-rise fires that didn't lead to collapse, because those buildings had different designs!"

Some of the examples debunkers list as valid comparisons to the WTC buildings:

• Site and Sound Theater
• McCormick Place
• Kader Toy Factory
• Mumbai High North Platform
• Interstate 580
• World Trade Center 5
• Dogwood Elementary School
• Windsor Tower
• Faculty of Architecture Building
• Post & McCord Building (Greenpoint)
• Sydney Broadway Crane

Many in the list are offered by Chris Mohr - http://tinyurl.com/mnybxwy
----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­---

"Debunkers are quick to point to these smaller and more poorly designed steel structures as valid comparisons to the WTC, while at the same time they argue that other actual high-rises engulfed in fire are not comparable to the WTC due to “differences in design.” This argument is rhetorical nonsense. If we are to draw comparisons between the WTC skyscrapers and other structures, then we would logically want to compare them to other skyscrapers. Debunkers have demanded that those advocating the “no other high-rise collapses” argument provide an example of a skyscraper fire that matches almost exactly the conditions of the WTC on 9/11. The website debunking911.com, for example, has a detailed list of conditions which the anonymous author feels need to be met before drawing any comparisons. But again, this same author has no problem offering drastically different structures that have collapsed from fire as valid comparisons to the WTC."

More by Adam Taylor: http://tinyurl.com/ocgg9w5

----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­----

Debunkers may remind us, for example, that Building 7 had :

* Load-bearing perimeter walls
* Only 24 core columns in a very irregular distribution (NOT an equally-spaced grid)
* Long-span trusses between those core and perimeter columns
* Cantilevering of large sections of the building.
* Cantilevering of the core structure itself (there were, IIRC, at least three or four "H" spans at the lower floors... so those 24 core columns are actually 20 core columns or less at bedrock).

They insist that these design features need to be present in other high-rise infernos for valid comparisons to be made with WTC.

But do the Kader Toy Factory, or the Tacoma Bridge, or the Sydney Broadway Crane share these same design features? Debunkers happily offer these examples of 'structures-with-steel' built into them that suffered some sort of structural failure due to fire. And then compare them with the WTC buildings.

Even if we accept these non high-rise structures the debunker offers, how many of them completely imploded to the ground like demolition? None.

So the debunker's examples are much further down the comparison scale than high-rises in terms of DESIGN. And they are much further down the comparison scale in terms of what TYPE of collapses they were, compared to WTC.

The debunker's position is untenable.

You Don't Need to Be an Engineer to Understand This!

It's either this:



 Or it's this:

[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]

http://rethink911.org

NY Times: "We've not yet found any evidence for controlled demolition"

Visit ReThink911.org | Canada Campaign Details (December 2013)
	NOVEMBER 25, 2013

Tell the NY TImes:
The Evidence Isn't Hard to Find...
If You Just Look

Yesterday New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent  was the guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about :

“We have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes that flew into them.”

Sanger was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why, despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively cover this crucial issue.”

Now with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!

Contact the NY Times Today

Last week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign. Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

To: dasang@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com, metro@nytimes.com, national@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com Bcc: NYTimesOutreach@AE911Truth.org Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times, On Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there, and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition. Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse. However, a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the building’s descent. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7. There is clear evidence of melted steel at Building 7, first reported on by the NY Times, and incendiaries in numerous dust samples from Ground Zero. As you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events, and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to seriously examine this crucial issue. Sincerely, [Name, address]

Thank you as always for your tremendous support.!

WTC Developers Cleared of Fault by 2nd Circuit - "Congressman The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives Is Real And Proven!"

WTC Developers Cleared of Fault by 2nd Circuit

Adam Klasfeld
Courthouse News
December 5, 2013


Claiming the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on an “unprecedented constellation of events,” the 2nd Circuit on Wednesday chucked negligence claims against the building’s landlords and developers.

The collapse of the North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001, sent fiery debris into Tower 7, lighting fires that burned for seven hours on multiple floors until it destroyed that building and crushed the Con Edison substation located directly underneath the building.

In 2004, Con Edison sued New York City, the Port Authority, and Tower 7′s owners and developers in Manhattan for negligence. The federal action has since gone through multiple rounds of appeals, amended complaints and procedural challenges by different groups of defendants.

Read more

View court docs (.pdf)

Source:

http://www.infowars.com/wtc-developers-cleared-of-fault-by-2nd-circuit/

"Congressman The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives Is Real And Proven!"



http://youtu.be/JbnW_NoiUTM

A common theme seems to be that the people who do not support a new investigation either have never read any 9/11 building reports, have no opinion, or have no idea of what WTC 7 even is.

Here is another LEADER who has never read any of the reports but firmly believes that the reports cover information substantially.

Recently I've seen McCain plead ignorance, Chomsky plead no opinion, and now this Congressman pleas that the investigation has adequately shown the facts but admits to not have actually read any of investigations himself.

The congressman was asked a question on WTC 7 and the Congressman says that radical terrorists brought it down; not fires..... But then again he hasn't read any of the reports so he doesn't know the actual NIST story is ordinary office fires.

To call C-SPAN's Washington Journal program:

Democrats: 1-202 585-3880
Republicans: 1-202-585-3881
Independents: 1-202-585-3882

It is on live every day at 7AM -10AM EST

More: http://911blogger.com/topics/c-span

Richard Gage Debunks Popular Mechanics, AE911Truth

Antonello talks with Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth about the "official story" of September 11, 2001 and debunks NIST and Popular Mechanics attempt to debunk them. The Twin Towers, Building 7 and much more.



Related:

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

Dr. Crockett Grabbe-National Swindle on the World Trade Center

Related Info:

Dr. Grabbe's website: http://www.sealane.org/

Dr. Grabbe's book: http://tinyurl.com/3s4sqcw

Dr. Grabbe's scholarly papers on the collapse of the WTC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18344.htm

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf

Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center:
A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen (published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics): http://www.sealane.org/writings/Seffenrevpub.pdf

Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center: http://www.sealane.org/writings/STcollapse.html

Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure: http://www.sealane.org/writings/NISTresp2.html

Showing that the South Tower of World Trade Center Collapsed from Forces More Powerful than Gravitation: http://www.sealane.org/writings/newSTCsub.pdf

Re-analyzing the Physical Causes for Destruction in the World Trade Center on 9/11: http://www.sealane.org/writings/WTCdestphys.pdf

Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant: http://www.sealane.org/writings/Bazantrpy.html

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!

Some newbie on the Prison Planet forum has just written the post of the month:

It's a simple talking point.

Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7.

What's all the fuss with 'Did Bin Laden Die in 2001?', 'Did They Kill Him in 2011, and Was It Murder?', 'Is Bin Laden Still Alive?'

What does it matter if they kill the patsy?

BIN LADEN DIDN'T DESTROY WTC 7.

Everytime someone wants to debate with you whether or not Bin Laden is dead and the latest tale rooted in truth, simply say: Bin Laden didn't bring down Building 7.

The new Bin Laden fable is being used to obfuscate the original 9/11 fable. But it's 9/11, not Bin Laden, that's being used to take away freedom. While it's appropriate to distrust the new Navy SEAL/Bin Laden story, there's a simple one-line response to it:

Bin Laden didn't bring down Building 7.

Related:

Remember Building 7

Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther

Rashard Mendenhall: 'I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style'

The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story

New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"

Ask Officials to Investigate Building 7

Related Info:

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.

Building What? is up...

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was nice enough to help promote the "BuildingWhat?"campaign recently by posting their ad.


Pat, your strategy of posting their video to help out and then inspiring truthers to donate more by insisting that the campaign is failing is brilliant, simply brilliant, my good man! Your genius efforts have now aided in the raising of over $32,000!

This is just like when you claimed that NYC-CAN.org didn't reach the goal of 32,000 signatures for their ballot initiative when they actually gathered 80,000, while you also ridiculed the first weeks numbers of their recent fax campaign. You lit a fire under our butts on that one, helping raise the numbers from 133 in the first week, to 217 the second, 221 the third, and 408 the fourth! All the while, you downplayed our improvement and kept us striving for more!

Again, thank you for promoting our efforts to the uninformed, while also misrepresenting the numbers when we surpass our goals by miles, and for making us feel like not reaching overly ambitious goals is somehow a let down. You keep us inspired brother!

OK, now let's get serious.

Pat states, "LOL! The usual bit about how "nobody knows that another building, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed that day." I have always said that Building 7 is a thin reed to build popular support for the Troof, for the simple reason that it takes too many logical leaps to get to the point where it fits in with the conspiracy theory."

I'm not sure if Pat is really saying that it's false that many people don't know about Building 7, or if he is just saying that it's not surprising because in his mind it was a non-event. In either case, David Ray Griffin's essay "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight" debunks both of these notions. After providing evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was a "deliberately suppressed story," Griffin states, "...The collapse of WTC 7 has been effectively hidden, even though it has existed in plain sight all these years. Even the bare fact of the collapse itself has been so effectively hidden that in 2006 over 40 percent of the American public did not know about it, and in 2009 a judge in New York City, upon hearing a reference to Building 7, asked: 'Building what?'"

The essay also addresses a perceived "logical leap" in the idea that conspirators beyond the 19 hijackers had a hand in WTC 7's destruction, Griffin writes:

I need to respond to an obvious objection: If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the afternoon, when the air was clean and cameras would be trained on this building, with the consequence that we have perfectly clear videos of the collapse of this building from various angles, each one showing its straight-down free-fall descent?

Here is an answer to that objection akin to Griffins by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT.


Pat states, "It is interesting to see more of a side view of the collapse (at about 16-17 seconds in), because it refutes Box Boy's claim that the collapse was symmetrical, and straight down through the path of most resistance."

As we've demonstrated before, this video refutes nothing.

Related Info:

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2

Building What? is up...

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Shirley they can't be serious!

Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense

A response to the nuttier response to David Chandler's nutty claims.

A debunker has posted a video in response to David Chandler's recent video "South Tower Smoking Guns".

My take:

The first point I agree with, it probably was just smoke escaping, but their response to Chandler's second smoking gun only focuses on the trail aspect, and not the much more damning fact that the object is falling faster than freefall, as if it was launched downwards. A much more obvious downward ejection can be seen in photographs and videos of the north tower's destruction...

You see that big piece of steel on the right hand side of the picture that's lined up with the roof of Tower 7? In certain videos of the north tower's destruction you can see that it "falls" much faster than the other falling material. The only explanation for this is that the piece had to have been launched downwards by some kind of explosive force.

Included are video clips of the ABC Balzac-Vitry demolition, used to demonstrate how a crushdown is possible. However, although the maker asserts that "Both the upper and lower sections of the buildings [sic] are disintegrated by the buildings [sic] own gravitational energy", they do not show an image of what that building looked like afterwards...

So much for "disintegrated"! Those videos don't debunk anything. In fact they actually demonstrate that a block of falling floors will slow down after colliding with lower floors. Something which Chandler and others have proved didn't happen in the case of the North tower.

As for the projectile, I'm not convinced by it either. I am however now highly intrigued by this missile-like projectile, launched from the collapsing North tower, that hits Building 7.

http://rapidshare.com/files/270158025/NTWTC7HIT.mpg

Related Info:

Click here to see a recent debate on this blog with the same so-called debunker.

South Tower: Exploding Projectile

STEVEN E. JONES: NANOTHERMITE (new DVD) - Watch it online now

Demolishing Inner & Outer Tyranny

This construction photograph of the North Tower shows that the core structures consisted of bundles of columns cross-linked by horizontal and diagonal members.

By Colin D. Donoghue

Yesterday I passed by a construction site downtown, for a new high-rise building. All that was in place so far were the steel beams at the center, arranged in a tight square, piercing into the air above. As I looked I remembered the photos of the construction of the twin towers, with their same steel inner cores rising first, the rest of the floors and structure being built around them. Yet the official story says those core columns didn't even exist, because it does not fit into their ridiculous “pancake theory” of collapse. You see them in the photo above, but Big Brother says they were never there, so that's good enough for the corporate media.

There is no need to go further into the evidence here; that has been done expertly by many scientists and architects, who's work can be found on this website and elsewhere. One can read the books on 9/11 by David Ray Griffin, watch the film "9/11 Mysteries", review the work on journalof911studies.com, stj911.org, ae911truth.org along with many other sources referred to on this website.

Yet one does not even need all this scientific proof, if they just had common sense! How can you watch building 7 collapse and think it was not a controlled demolition? The fact that something so obvious as the controlled demolitions of the twin towers and building 7 remains controversial today puts me in a strange mood. It's a mood of disbelief, sadness, frustration and pity.

What hope is there for humanity if mass-murderers can get away with a crime that the whole world saw, simply by telling people they saw something else?

It's like a man shooting another, plain as day, but then saying "Oh, that was just a water pistol, and the man died of a heart attack." Never mind the bullet in the other man's chest. Never mind the gunfire residue covering the murderer's hand. Let him go, simply because he says something else happened. Of course this is why "debunkers" make lousy cops...

This blog continues below the video...



The amount of evidence that 9/11 was an act of state-sponsored terrorism is so overwhelming, it makes me wonder if perhaps humans as a whole are just too stupid and gullible to end the reign of fascists and tyrants. The perpetrators of 9/11 were certainly counting on that being the case.

I hope humanity proves them wrong. But now, with the messianic deception of Obama and the current economic crisis, sure to be followed by other generated trauma-inducing events that Biden "guaranteed" us will occur soon, I wonder if this evil, today encapsulated in the phrase “The New World Order”, can be stopped. Perhaps it as many spiritual teachers say, that until we achieve self-realization, violence, oppression and tyranny will continue, century after century.

Yet one does not need to be enlightened to see something so obvious as the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings! And most people that do see the evidence, do understand it; my questioning of the basic intelligence of humanity as a whole is really not called for. Polls show the majority of Americans don't believe the official 9/11 story. So why is that official story allowed to be called “history” and taught to our children? Why do government officials and members of Congress that know the truth do nothing?

Corruption... and why are they so easily corrupted? Because they do not value human life, or principles such as freedom and love; they value wealth and power, just as fascists of one sort or another have throughout the history of human civilization. And why do they value wealth and power over freedom and love? “Because they have lost the connection to the liberating love within them”, I know many Yogis might say.

So here's the comprehensive solution:
Re-open the 9/11 investigation, find the guilty officials, put them in jail for the rest of their lives, and sign them up for a prison meditation course. Then we'll have justice for the victims of 9/11, end the tyranny and violence based on that Big Lie, and strike at the root of the evil as well.

Activism...

911proof.com - Now What?
911truth.org: GET INVOLVED
NYC Coalition for Accountability Now
Citizens' Action: 9/11 Petitions
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Action Items
Take a Stand for 9/11 Truth
A Monster List of Media Email Addresses!
TruthMove.org
Meet The Truthers
WeAreChange.org
WeAreChange Indy
IndyTruth.org
REAL CHANGE = THE PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO
FealGood Foundation
Peace Action

NIST Debunks Itself

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog also debunks himself in his entry a "A Spot of Debunking" when he states:

Nobody has explained why controlled demolition should be as fast as free-fall speed in the first place. This seems to be just assumed.

Here's a page with the Southwark Towers demolition, which Steven Jones cited in one of his lectures as a very good comparable for the WTC. You have to click on the third icon from the left on the bottom row to see this demo.

Watching carefully, I estimated that the roof on the left building started sagging right around 38.24 into the movie, and that the top of the building hit ground at about 45.69. Thus the duration of the collapse was about 7.45 seconds. From this page we know that the roof of the building was about 98 meters high, or approximately 323 feet. But a building of 323 feet should not take 7.45 seconds to collapse in free fall, it should only take 4.5 seconds by the formula 16*4.5^2=323.
And indeed, there is no reason to expect that controlled demolition results in a free-fall collapse of a building.

First of all, as is pointed out in the video a slowing of the descent of the building as it begins to pile up and encounter resistance is to be expected. Secondly, the more reputable 9/11 researchers like Jim Hoffman of the website 911research.wtc7.net have never claimed that the buildings fell at exactly free-fall speed.

In regard to the Twin Towers Hoffman states that the Towers' tops fell virtually unimpeded. He points out that "in a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof," but this does not factor in air resistance, which alone could account for the 15 second fall time, he states:

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.

Again, in regard to WTC 7 Hoffman points out that it plunged at a nearly free-fall rate.

Related Info:

Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies

EXCLUSIVE: To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them