Monday, February 28, 2022

How Biden Could End the Ukraine Crisis


How Biden Could End the Ukraine Crisis

Gibbs is professor of history at the University of Arizona and has written extensively on NATO. He recently wrote the piece “Claims Over Broken Promises About NATO Simmer at the Heart of the Ukraine Crisis.”

He said today: “In its efforts to expand NATO into Ukraine, the Biden administration is recklessly inflaming the international crisis, endangering global security. It is often forgotten that in 1990, the U.S. promised that NATO would not expand into the former communist states of Eastern Europe; ‘not one inch Eastward,’ Soviet leaders were assured by the U.S. Secretary of State at the time. Despite this promise, NATO soon expanded into Eastern Europe, eventually placing the alliance up against Russia’s borders. To resolve the current crisis, the Biden administration should offer a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO. To do this would satisfy the key Russian demand, consistent with the 1990 U.S. commitment.”

Gibbs is author of the book First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, published by Vanderbilt University Press.

After 9/11: When Bioweapons Attacked Congress


After 9/11: When Bioweapons Attacked Congress

    Journalists Coen and Nader produced the documentary “Anthrax War” which was aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

    Beginning Sept 18, 2001, letters bearing the date “9-11-01” and the words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” were mailed to members of Congress and others. They spread fear across the country. Congress was closed down for a period. Then, amid this state of panic, the Patriot Act was passed. See news release from last month: “How the 2001 Anthrax False Flag Attacks Paved Way for Afghanistan and Iraq Invasions.”

    The attacks killed five people. The high grade anthrax, the Ames strain, was developed by the U.S. military.

    The FBI would claim that Fort Detrick Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins was the sole person responsible for the attacks. He would die of an alleged suicide, so there was never a trial. “Anthrax War” features Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the targets of the attacks, telling then-FBI head Robert Mueller: “I do not believe in any way, shape or manner, that he is the only person involved in this attack on Congress and the American people. I do not believe that at all. I believe there are others involved either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe there are others that can be charged with murder.”

    The documentary also features Leahy asking Mueller: “These weapons that were used against the American people — and they’re weapons; they’re weapons — the weapons that were used against the American people and Congress — are you aware of any facility in the United States that is capable of making the weapons that were used on Congress and the American people besides Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, and the Battelle facility in West Jefferson, Ohio?” Mueller would not respond in public.

    “Anthrax War” quotes noted scientists, like Jonathan King, a professor of molecular biology at MIT: “The response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide billion-dollar campaign to, quote ‘defend us from unknown terrorists.’ But the character of this program is roughly as follows. You say well, what would the terrorists come up with? What’s the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult to diagnose, difficult to treat, microorganisms that we can think of? Well, let’s go bring that organism into existence, so that we can figure out how to defend against that. The fact of the matter is, it’s indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing.”

    “Anthrax War” features Putin charging that, as a result of U.S. government actions: “It’s now obvious that a fresh round of a new arms race has started.”

    Additional material is at Coen and Nadler wrote the book Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail. They run Transformer Films and their work has been featured on ARTE Europe, NHK Japan, Al Jazeera, National Geographic and PBS.

80,000 classified documents hold 20-year secrets behind 9/11 attacks---20 Years Later, 9/11 Cover-ups Continue


20 Years Later, 9/11 Cover-ups Continue

A former FBI special agent and division counsel, Rowley famously wrote a May 2002 memo to then FBI Director Robert Mueller exposing some of the FBI’s pre-9/11 conduct. She was then named one of TIME magazine’s “Persons of the Year.” She recently appeared on an news release: “9/11 Cover-up: Whistleblower Coleen Rowley.”

One of the “Jersey Girls,” Breitweiser is a lawyer and co-founder of September 11 Advocates. She just wrote the piece “My Husband Died on 9/11. I Am Still Waiting for a Trial of His Killers” for The Intercept. She said today: “For a country that invokes 9/11 so freely to start wars, such use of the 9/11 tagline abruptly halts at the courthouse steps. Not one individual, entity, bank, or business has been fully prosecuted and found criminally responsible as a co-conspirator. That is by systemic prosecutorial choice, for matters of political expediency, cover-up, or in the best-case scenario, sheer embarrassment. Horrifically, some U.S. prosecutors literally sit on the side of the defendants (in this case, Saudi Arabia) and help the key evidence we need stay secret.”

TERRY GREEN, via Katharina Feil,   
Green’s brother Donald was killed at the on Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001. She is a member of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. The group has recently filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in U.S. v Abu Zubaydah charging that the judiciary is “serving as a gatekeeper to prevent unjustified invocations of the state secrets privilege, which may otherwise suppress information that is not privileged or is merely embarrassing to the government.” Members of the organization have traveled to Afghanistan and to Guantanamo to observe pre-trial hearings of the 9/11 accused. The group is also holding a film festival. Feil is project coordinator for the group and can connect media to various members of the organization.

Sunday, February 27, 2022

REBUTTAL! DEBUNKED: Conspiracy theorists claim video 'proves bombs were planted' in 9/11 attack---I had no idea I was quoted in this horribly inaccurate newspaper article from 2017...

The following piece of scat masquerading as a purveyor of facts is literally the worst duh-bunk-turd attempt at debunking the 9/11 truth movement EVER and we have taken on quite a few around these parts over the years...

Conspiracy theorists claim video 'proves bombs were planted' in 9/11 attack

Does this footage back up conspiracy theories?

The official explanation is that puffs of smoke from the towers was air pressure caused by collapsing floors, the Daily Star reports.

But John-Michael Talboo, from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said of videos of the attacks: “There is no reason, on the ‘dust puff’ theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were." 

The day following the attack, US President Donald Trump gave a TV interview which appeared to suggest the World Trade Center buildings collapsed because of bombs.

He said: “It wasn’t architectural defect. How could a plane, even a 767 or 747 or whatever it might have been; how could it possibly go through that steel?

“I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs – bombs that exploded simultaneously.

“Because I can’t imagine anything being able to go through that wall.”

Experts have cast doubt on whether the seeming explosions were caused by bombs, however.

Structural engineers who worked on the FEMA investigation believe that the puffs of smoke were caused by a process known as 'pancaking'.

This is what happens when floors collapse downward in a chain reaction, rather than a bomb being detonated.

Dear Lord, what sleuths these ones are. FFS Where to start... Well, first, thanks for the compliment that kicks of your headline! #ProudConspiracyTheorist

That's where them getting pretty much anything correct stops. Now, a quick and easy point, 9/11 truth has experts in droves too and more than you!

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

So, the video being discussed is this one...

nist-photo-release-explosionVideo evidence has revealed that violent ejections occurred before the North Tower began its descent.
In the article I wrote, that they quoted me from and that they conveniently didn't link to thus omitting all my damning cited evidence, I wasn't talking about this ejection at all in the quote. They make it seem (either intentionally or stupidly) as if I am indeed referencing this squib. They then proceed to miss the significance of this event being mentioned even though they provide a quote that pretty well states why...

Posting below the video, Mike Wayne wrote: "This really s***s on the "dust puffs and air pressure" claim of the official lie."

So, to reiterate the significance from my original article that these Stevie Wonder blunder heads apparently couldn't see even in their own hit piece...

As to these ejections appearing only after the collapse initiation, it should be noted that the North Tower's antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. There is also video showing that some of these ejections occurred even before the collapses began. See Visible Explosion at World Trade Center and WTC 1 collapse initiation — visible signs.

For those dear readers who have eyes to see, it should be apparent that the pancaking floors "puffs of dust" explanation is directly contradicted by the video they focused on, as well as the other material I mentioned. Which by the way, was kept from the public's prying eyes by the official investigator's at NIST, even after a FOIA request was filed seeking the material. It took an eventual lawsuit to finally obtain the materials, very much akin to the firefighter oral histories, which like the stonewalled videos, are strongly suggestive of explosive demolition being employed on 9/11. In the case of the videos, we would likely not even be discussing them if not for the efforts of the 9/11 truther organization that fought for them and filed suit...

The International Center for 9/11 Studies is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the scientific study of the attacks in New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001. The Center engages in scientific research and educational activities that are international in scope and multidisciplinary in nature, and is committed to promoting and engaging in data-driven empirical research performed to the highest academic standards. Through a network of former and current University professors, as well as professionals in a multitude of science and engineering professions, the Center encourages collaboration, information sharing, dialogue and debate across geographical and disciplinary boundaries. Scientific Papers The Center's Director has authored or co-authored several peer reviewed papers regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers. Government Accountability The Center led an effort by a team of experts to submit public comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology pointing out serious errors and omissions in the NIST report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Nut jobs, obviously!

Here's the pertinent info on those firefighter wackos...

Oral Histories

Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions

On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders. The interviews were conducted between October of 2001 and January of 2002 under the order of New York City's fire commissioner at the time of the attack, Thomas Von Essen, who wanted to preserve first-hand accounts of the attack. 1  

The New York Times published the oral histories, and provides an index of PDFs of the interviews here2   The Times converted a subset of the interviews into text files. 3   The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*

The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.

* This compilation was facilitated by David Ray Griffin, the author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions who in turn credits Matthew Everett, author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before for locating many of the passages excerpted here.

1. City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today, New York Times, 8/12/05 [cached]
2. The Sept. 11 Records, New York Times[cached]
3. Untitled, New York Times[cached]

Pretty lame brained schooling of us conspiracy theorists so far from this purported journalistic mainstream source of (dis?) information. Trump's allegations of fake news from the legacy "mainstream" news just essentially got proved in one fowl and foul swoop via the outrageous wool this so-called paper tried to pull over the eyes of it's readers like you that it obviously takes to be just unsuspecting fools. And quoting me was a mistake also too, because I'm not a UK aristocrat, it's true, but I'm far from a rube. Trump is likely spot on about the explosions on 9/11 as well and those plane impacts also! He's a building construction expert too, but they must have also became absent minded about this, or assume you forgot as they are apparently prone to do and they aren't going to remind you. Only their experts that they fall back on after quoting Trump, they must expect of you, are the only ones worthy of you to look to. Because gain, if you discover that they exist, it will be despite their hard hitting news that fails to mention much of anything regarding the expertise of many of the conspiracy theorizing community that they aim to poo-pooh with the poo they do spew.


Debunking 9/11 Debunking: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact

Frank DiMartini (WTC Construction Manager):
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. The jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

The crew could have perhaps better informed the US nation than us here at the tinfoil hat plantation, but that train has left the station. Yes, it's gets worse...

After failing somehow to see the inherent flaw in the pancake theory that they still managed to expose without disclosing for whatever reason, they then immediately pivot to that very same damn THEORY to debunk the info that debunks it, stating...

Powered by Structural engineers who worked on the FEMA investigation believe that the puffs of smoke were caused by a process known as 'pancaking'. This is what happens when floors collapse downward in a chain reaction, rather than a bomb being detonated.

My God, there's a lot of bunk to unpack for such a small statement as that! First off, FEMA was only an initial limited investigation and was preceded by the much larger in volume follow up "official story" final word by NIST in two massive and yet massively lacking in substance reports, but the article authors mustn't have got the word AGAIN. Much like the Government reports, that didn't even model the collapse of the Towers beyond the initiation, because it's just so purportedly painfully obvious that they fell naturally after that, both these similarly feathered birds are patently absurd! NIST did, however, after pestering from truther experts, quit with the weasel words, and said the same thing again, but with the spin undone and reversed regarding their lack of due diligence that left a huge, massive skyscraper sized, stone unturned...

NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"

In August of 2005, 9-11 Research published Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century, Version 0.98, by Jim Hoffman. The essay critiqued the Draft of NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Towers, which actually only treats the Twin Towers, not WTC 7, the third WTC tower to totally collapse. (The Report's detailed title, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft), is similarly misleading.) Hoffman's essay noted that NIST went to great lengths to model aspects of the attack that are well understood -- such as the impacts of the jetliners -- while quietly sidestepping the core question of how the Twin Towers totally collapsed. By truncating the timelines of its models before the collapses even began, NIST not only evaded its stated objective of explaining the collapses, it avoided disclosing the many features of controlled demolition exhibited by the collapses.

But let's get back to the start, with FEMA, in regards to WTC 7...

The FEMA experts wrote in their 2003 report that the best scenario they could devise for Building 7’s collapse had only a “low probability” of occurrence. In 2005, Sunder told reporters that the agency’s “working hypothesis” was that Building 7 fell because of fuel fires coupled with structural weakening caused by falling debris from a main tower. NIST retracted that idea in its final draft of the Building 7 report, concluded in August.

The NIST WTC 7 report also included a key correction, once again only brought to light by the diligent efforts of another expert truther, this time a physics instructor...

It was David Chandler’s analysis that forced NIST to admit that during part of Building Seven’s descent, it was falling at free fall speed which is impossible unless the structural support for the the building was being systemically destroyed by a controlled demolition.

This characterization of the implications of NIST's admission was given major credible support in an independent study on Building 7...

Study: Fire Did Not Cause WTC7 To Collapse, Explosives Necessary

The Facts: A study out of the university of Alaska at Fairbanks concluded that World Trade Center 7 definitively could not have fallen from fire. NIST's official explanation that 'thermal expansion' caused the building to fall was proven to be impossible.

The new film Seven, directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.  After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions.  “The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

Are there more problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report or the NIST WTC 7 Report? You Decide...

Damn those non-Government investigators! Media solution... ignore them! You should, but the former not the latter. ;)

Back on over to FEMA, who along with blatant distortions of fact such as the literally physical reality of core building columns existing, also found evidence consistent with demolition and recommended further study of the puzzling "mystery" evidence, after which NIST did nothing to resolve their concerns and also admitted to not forensically testing for explosives because they know that they weren't used, so why test for what's not there.

Appendix C of the initial Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study of the collapses in which three Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) professors called the “severe corrosion and subsequent erosion” of the debris a “very unusual event.” They said of the residue on the steel that “no clear explanation of the source of the sulfur has been identified.”

A 2002 WPI press release said the professors, who were hoping NIST would back further research, were also startled by the Swiss-cheese appearance of the shards, having expected bending but not holes.

Investigation History
In the wake of the attack a group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) volunteered to investigate the structural responses of the WTC buildings to the September 11 attack. Eventually FEMA took over the investigation of the ASCE volunteers, dubbing them the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT).

The BPAT lacked subpoena power, hence was unable to obtain access to important documents such as engineering drawings of the buildings. 2 


The Report is illustrated with many colorful cartoon-like drawings, such as one explaining FEMA's postulated floor collapse mechanism. It seems crafted to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the Towers had no core structures.

Despite its distortions, FEMA's Report provides a substantial amount of data about the event not documented elsewhere, and conspicuously absent from NIST's reports. For example, Appendix C describes observations, interesting from a forensic standpoint, that steel members were severely corroded by sulfidative attack.

Forensic Metallurgy

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2   

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Thermite Use as an Explanation

The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

Two other official investigations also found evidence consistent with a controlled demo job and independent follow up expert analysis only furthered this case...

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.

Iron-Rich Spheres

Evidence collected by the US Geological Survey (USGS) showed up in a 2005 report: photographs showing particles with striking spherical symmetry, ranging in diameter from under 100 microns up to about 1.5 millimeters. 1   Another set of reports, prepared for Deutshe Bank in late 2003 also shows micrographs of iron-rich spheres. 2   3  


Jones searched for prosaic explanations for the metallic spherules and ruled out various scenarios...

Residues Consistent With Incendiaries

Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson. For example, dust samples contained particles with high levels of manganese, zinc, and barium. 6   Barium is a toxic metal used in a number of industrial processes, but unlikely to be present in significant quantities in an office building. It is, however, useful as a catalyst and accelerant of aluminothermic reactions. Zinc, barium and sulfur are all common in military thermites. 7

This is, however, only one of a myriad of possible demolition scenarios/options that have been proposed as the culprit or some combination thereof, but all stand in a united front against the official story and none are refuted via the non-forensic official approach, that has been articulately argued as more than approaching scientific fraud.

Note that some researchers put much more credence into other demo theories than the above linked source...


As a forum commenter called "hiper" so very aptly put it, to famed Joe Rogan guest and self-proclaimed "debunker" Mick West (who this site has taken on in print and during two interviews on his podcast)...

They produce a case based on speculation while ignoring the physical evidence.

So because they are the government institution charged with the investigation they only "have to explain why they don't think there were explosives"... they do that because they have the power.

What grade do you think an applied physics students gets on their exam when they only explain why they think there is no need to a physical test... F is the answer.

The fact you are still refusing to admit NIST was in error here does not do you reputation any good... a real debunker calls every and all bunk including NIST's.

9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests


In fact, in its numerous public pronouncements between 2004 and 2008, NIST cites no forensic evidence gathered by criminal investigators, even though Congress had granted the agency subpoena power. For example, the final report on the collapse of the 47-story Building 7 includes the New York City fire and police departments among “cooperating organizations” that assisted its inquiry but says nothing of the FBI or other federal investigative agency.

A computer search of FBI and Justice Department documents and press releases failed to turn up any record of the FBI’s findings concerning tests for explosives at Ground Zero. The FBI and another Justice Department unit, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, routinely do forensic testing of crime scenes where explosives or incendiaries are a possibility.

As pointed out by the group FireFightersFor911Truth, "The National Fire Protection Association very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. (both have been documented in the WTC debris) Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.”

And in NIST's 2006 Q&A paper they stated that they didn't test for any type of explosives, conventional or otherwise.
Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

NIST's final installment was its December 2008 Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation. In it, NIST repeated the same sophism that it had used in its FAQ on its Twin Tower report: implying that thermite/thermate would have been unsuitable as a demolition tool because it acts too slowly, would have been too hard keep pressed against the steelwork, and would have required too much preparation and material quantities to go undetected. NIST goes on to repeat its earlier assertion that testing for evidence of explosives "would not necessarily have been conclusive".

NIST's disingenuity is obvious in both its straw-man argument against aluminothermic-based demolition and its excuse not to look for or at evidence of incendiaries. In obligatory formal correspondence involving requests for correction to its Twin Towers report NIST officials were asked to correct erroneous statements about the conclusiveness of testing.

Nonsensical decisions backed by circular logic are just as dumb when experts do it as when any other commoner or village idiot engages in such a logically fallacious manner of operating. Can't find what's not there. Uh-huh, genius level expert, let me do a conspiracy query because I'm feeling weary... Can you also not find what you don't look for?! Experts abound, but they're out to lunch for sure, it's as palpable as wind from a slumbering bear's snore than their brains are asleep even more!

Let's reexamine the main article I'm addressing by repeating one of the author's statements. This short bit of text is the epitome of a skill I didn't know existed, that of being epically wrong, but not taking too long...

Powered by Structural engineers who worked on the FEMA investigation believe that the puffs of smoke were caused by a process known as 'pancaking'. This is what happens when floors collapse downward in a chain reaction, rather than a bomb being detonated.

Puffs of smoke is bunkum, but again my original article that they just happened to quote, but not provide addressed this and much more in some detail.

Please do check it out, but here also is a hip-hop laced presentation with some video aides that also extinguishes the "puffs of smoke" joke, but a different approach for different folks and easier to copy and/or share in totality. But best of all it covers something that I didn't, which the inexplicably rested their hats on despite the fact that the other major point they focused on demolished the hat rack... The pancaking floors! That said, I will add some more debunker poison to the pancake mix after the video quits just to ensure, as best as I can kids, that their bullshit quits. 


How can pancaked floors cause the squibs if the idea was abandoned by NIST?!?!

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Quoting FEMA instead of NIST seems a bit sus and smells like fish, just like all the other seemingly dumb stuff they did that smells like Grade A Government seal of approval stamped bullshit, that these propagandists tried with us true skeptics willing to question the credibility of more than just anything that goes against the status quo narrative pretending to be the norm and thus worthy of, establishment defending driven pseudo-skeptical scorn. The devoted "skeptic" movement types, I must warn, are skeptical at a level much lower than luke war, in regards to anything that the power structure has sworn is beyond the pale, one can't help but to wonder if some or many are just hired gun mouthpieces for sale to tyrants avoiding jail.

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression...

Of course, not being visually impaired we truthers could always see that the floors didn't pancake, because there was no such stack of floors left on the ground as one would expect from such an event...

Here is a small structure with pancaked floors from an earthquake...

Instead, at Ground Zero, with massive structures we saw images like this...

Ultimately, official story defenders with just say that whatever theory is the current accepted one caused the squibs. They have to unless they want to be decried and treated like little kids.

They so fake woke, used to slavery and scared of bravery and that a much scarier world might exist, that they might just get, a karmic gift, of some pants filled with piss, once they see the light, join the fight and resist. But I digress... The failure of the pancake theory to explain the squibs circles us back to the surrounding supporting evidence, that to put it concisely, is that the Twin Towers quite obviously and inexplicably explosively blew the F up, with no prior or subsequent adequate precedent except controlled demolition, which actually isn't nearly as an explosive of an event with traditional acknowledged demos (7 was a classic demo). Peace out.

North Tower Exploding by David Chandler

Collapse Features

Characteristics of the Twin Towers' Destruction and What They Show

The total destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence.

  • The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.
  • The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
  • Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
  • The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
  • Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
  • Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
  • The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
  • Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
  • The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
  • The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
  • The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.


9_11 - THE JANE STANDLEY _ BBC WTC7 INCIDENT EXPLAINED---Thorough debunking of the video right below it...

Waiting for Seven:

WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Graeme MacQueen
January 11, 2008
On September 11, 2001 there were numerous advance warnings of World Trade
Center 7’s collapse, and many people have argued that these warnings are evidence that
the building was subjected to controlled demolition. But other researchers feel the
warnings are compatible with the hypothesis of natural collapse from damage that the
building sustained throughout the day. In this article I examine the arguments of one
researcher, Ryan Mackey, who argues, using the oral histories of the New York Fire
Department, that the collapse was natural and the warnings rational and based on direct
perception. Although I agree with Mackey that the damage to Seven was serious and
must be acknowledged as such, I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories
does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over
the collapse warnings. The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on
the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse;
they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told.

The third Panel study shows that on September 11, 2001, many people were told hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield said early in the afternoon: "I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next.” 

Many members of the New York Fire Department were confidently waiting for the building to come down:

Firefighter Thomas Donato: "We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.”

Assistant Commissioner James Drury: "I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.”  

Chief Thomas McCarthy: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.”

In addition, CNN and the BBC made premature announcements.

This foreknowledge corroborates the evidence presented in previous Consensus Points (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Source:            The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @911consensus
Co-founders:    David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth

Point WTC7-7: Foreknowledge of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

<< Previous PointNext Point >>


On September 11, 2001, many people knew well before World Trade Center 7 collapsed that this 47-story high-rise building was going to come down. [1] There were even two premature announcements of the collapse by major television networks. How could this foreknowledge be explained?

Advocates of the official narrative of the collapse of WTC 7 have proposed, at different times, two differing explanations – here called Account 1 and Account 2 – which can both be called official accounts.

Account 1, the earlier explanation, was widely disseminated on the Internet and at one time received some support from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), thus making it a de facto official account. [2]

Account 2 is the current official account of the collapse, having been put forth in NIST’s final (2008) report. [3]

The Official Accounts
Account 1: WTC 7 was critically damaged by flying debris from the collapsing WTC 1, which caused structural damage and fires in WTC 7. These fires were especially large and hot, being fed by diesel fuel stored in the building. [4] Seeing the structural damage and fires, fire chiefs and engineers concluded that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. Concerns were therefore expressed and appropriate actions taken: firefighters were withdrawn from the building, and firefighters and others were told the building might come down. Accordingly, collapse predictions were rational responses to direct observation by witnesses. [5]

Account 2: The earlier explanation of WTC 7’s collapse (Account 1) is incorrect. Impact damage from flying debris caused by WTC 1’s collapse was insufficient to put WTC 7 at risk and did not play a significant role in its collapse. [6] And the fires were not intensified by diesel fuel stored in the building. [7]

WTC 7 came down primarily due to fire. This was the first time in history that a steel-framed high-rise had collapsed due to fire. [8] The fire triggered this collapse by means of a unique and unobserved sequence of events inside the building, including thermal expansion of floor systems, an unseated girder, and floor collapses, resulting in a cascade of column buckling. [9]

A single column failure had caused a complete north-to-south interior collapse, which in turn precipitated a complete east-to-west interior collapse, ultimately leaving the exterior columns laterally unsupported and causing all of them to buckle in a nearly simultaneous way.

Although the fires in WTC 7 were affecting the steel components of the building over a period of hours, the building did not actually become unstable, nor was its fate sealed, until minutes, or even seconds, before it began to come down. [10]

The Best Evidence
Neither Account 1 nor Account 2 fits the evidence.

Contrary to what is often implied by supporters of the official 9/11 narrative, witnesses who expected WTC 7 to come down evidently did not reach this conclusion because of anything they personally perceived but because of what they were told[11]

What witnesses personally perceived most obviously cannot explain Account 2, which posits a sequence of last-minute events inside the building that was unprecedented, unpredictable, and invisible to witnesses.

But both accounts are contradicted by the facts that

  1. some people were certain that the building was going to come down, that
  2. some of them had this certainty early, and that
  3. some of the major media gave premature announcements of the collapse of WTC 7.
  1. On the issue of certainty, MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield said early in the afternoon: “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next,” with one of them saying “they’re just waiting for that to come down at this point.” [12] And indeed, many members of the Fire Department of New York are on record as having been confidently waiting for the building to come down. [13] For example:
    • Firefighter Thomas Donato said: “We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.” [14]
    • Firefighter James Wallace said: “They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don’t know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down. We waited for building seven to come down.” [15]
    • Assistant Commissioner James Drury said: “I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to – they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.” [16]
    • Chief Thomas McCarthy said: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.” [17]
    • Paramedic Steven Pilla said: “We walked back. We didn’t do [sic] any further because building number seven was coming down. That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down.” [18]

    The evidence that many witnesses were certain of collapse, which is solid, [19] cannot be explained either by Account 1 or by Account 2.

  2. The existence of early knowledge is also well supported:
    • Firefighter Vincent Massa, speaking of the firefighters waiting for WTC 7 to come down, has said: “The whole time while we were waiting – there were hours that went by.” [20]
    • Massa’s estimate is confirmed by a wider study of the FDNY oral histories. The study found that of 60 firefighters who mention predictions about the collapse of WTC 7, the times of these predictions can be determined in 33 cases: in 17 cases the predictions occurred within the two hours before collapse, while in the other 16 cases the predictions were made over two hours before collapse. In six cases the predictions were apparently made over four hours before collapse. [21]
    • Some reports indicate that the FDNY had been cleared from WTC 7 as early as 2 PM and had been told to abandon the building because it was doomed. [22] This forecast appears to have come from Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management. [23]

    How could confident and valid collapse predictions have been made so far in advance? Account 2, the current official explanation, is especially incapable of answering this question, since the unique and fatal internal collapse sequence central to this explanation was not witnessed by anyone and took place right before collapse. In any case, since no steel-framed building had ever collapsed before without being imploded, there would have been no basis for such predictions.

  3. The official accounts are also contradicted by premature announcements of the collapse of WTC 7 by CNN and the BBC:
    • CNN announced the impending collapse of WTC 7 an hour and 10 minutes before it actually collapsed. [24] Directly after its premature announcement, and intermittently for the following hour, CNN displayed the caption, “Building 7 at World Trade Center on fire, may collapse.” Then 4.5 minutes prior to the collapse, a new caption appeared: “Building #7 ablaze, poised to collapse.” Finally, 3 minutes later there was another caption: “Building 7 at World Trade Center on fire, on verge of collapse.” At no time during these 70 minutes could viewers see evidence of any alteration in WTC 7, such as increased fire, partial collapse, or even leaning. [25]
    • The collapse of WTC 7 was announced by the BBC 23 minutes prematurely. The BBC even gave a version of Account 1 to explain why it collapsed. [26] This premature announcement, along with the explanation, was especially peculiar, given the fact that a steel-framed building had never before collapsed because of fire.

Neither Account 1 nor Account 2 of the collapse of WTC 7 can account for the certainty of many people on the scene that the building was going to collapse, the fact that some of them had this foreknowledge long in advance, and that two of the TV networks were able to announce the collapse prematurely. This foreknowledge, it would seem, must have come from people who intended to bring the building down.

This foreknowledge corroborates, therefore, the evidence and conclusions presented in previous Points (see Consensus Points WTC7-1235, and 6) that WTC 7 was brought down through a process of controlled demolition.

<< Previous PointNext Point >>