Home 911Truth Empirical Observation of 9-11

Empirical Observation of 9-11


1326436592556356 This is what a building collapse looks like. Even though the pillars of the building have been skillfully severed by explosives – everything of weight is going DOWNWARDS.

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“the Principia”), first published on 5 July 1687.

327 years later society, governments and the mainstream media seem to have a problem with Newton. Ex Prime Minister Julia Gillard even called it in question in Parliament – calling it “stupid and wrong” to question the collapse of the WTC towers (and WTC 7) – when Kevin Bracken (Victorian Trades Hall President) was derided by Jon Faine on ABC 774 radio. (video)

September 11 is nearly upon us – again. More posts today here on RETHINK911 and from a survivor here. And go to – WITNESSES, WHISTLEBLOWERS and PARENTS

So observe: This is one of the pictures that show how Newton’s law was broken on the 11th of September 2001. It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP – with sophisticated explosives.


Fascinating how Newton’s law is applied every single day – except on that one day (9/11/01). Newton would be stunned.

Mass hypnosis?

For further info, go to http://www.ae911truth.org, where Richard Gage and over 2,200 architects and engineers can tell you more about how Newton would have viewed the collapses.

For more articles on 9-11 on gumshoenews. Whistleblower; Degrees of evil; Bob McIlvaine; Listen to Experts; Hijacking America’s Mind

ADDED NOTE (8 Sept): The comments section have been INUNDATED with with countless postings from the same few people (dis-info agents?) I am no longer going to answer them and it seems to me they are deliberately trying to clog the comments section (much with bunk). This has inspired a further post – for which these ‘experts’ I’m sure will have little to say.

To purchase my children’s book THE THREE TALL BUILDINGS – and how they huffed and puffed the baby building down – click here. 50% of the purchase of the book will be donated to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. All future profits of all the books will go back into producing more books like this.

3 tall buildings poster2


  1. No kidding those crazy bastards are up to their neck in selling us out. They have been desperately trying to start a major riot in Ferguson hoping to instigate a national riot so they could deploy their centrally controlled locally deployed military anti democracy army. By God if we the people become so embolden as to think we could meet up and demonstrate they have clearly illustrated what we could expect, to be gassed, beaten, and shot dead. Oh the rule of law has given me such a secure feeling! Notice how there is no shortage of goons who willingly pull the trigger.

  2. The main question is not only: why 3 buildings (with the same owner) fell down in free fall just on their footprint?
    The main question is: why the other building around didn’t do the same?

  3. The main question is not only: why 3 buildings (with the same owner) fell down in free fall just on their footprint?
    The main question is: why the other building around didn’t do the same?

    • The North Tower was targeted by al Qaeda in 1993, and both WTC towers were owned by the PANYNJ. Other non-WTC buildings were also damaged so badly on 9/11 that they had to be razed.
      If WTC 7’s ~5:21 PM fire-induced collapse baffles you, read NCSTAR 1A.

      • “The North Tower was targeted by al Qaeda in 1993″~Albury

        Actually the North Tower was targeted by the FBI in 1993.

  4. Don’t forget about the Bankers Trust Building that had to dismantled after numerous attempts to repair the damage caused by material from the towers hitting it. The only book that mentions this FACT is called “Where did the towers go?” Learn the truth about 9/11 and what really caused the damage to all the buildings that contained the words “WTC” . The lie is deeper than you think you know!

  5. Someone noticed that the buildings did not exactly fall at free fall velocity. He estimated 60% of that, although I would guess a bit faster. Neither is it necessary for a controlled demolition to fall that fast. These little inaccuracies make it difficult to talk to deniers of the laws of physics. Please stop.

    • Please stop what? It is as clear as a yellow sunrise that the towers literally explode outwards. Hundreds of tons flying laterally. Watch the videos in super motion and you will see things (heavy materials) actually propelled UPWARDS. Re: Someone estimated 60% of free fall? – Well I point you to David Chandler – mathematician – and dissected and analysed this event in detail. He is not someone, and he did not estimate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUbSupJEDsw
      you can search for his papers on 911truth.org

      • You’re very right to point out David Chandler’s work in analyzing the destruction of WTC 7 and he also did good work regarding WTC towers 1 and 2, as well. Regarding 7 though, he has concluded, with video illustrations for others to watch and listen to, that the building came down at virtually perfect free-fall acceleration, but only until the 29th floor; meaning, that only the top 18 floors came down at what can justly or fairly be called free-fall acceleration. Once the 29th floor was reached, then there began to be deceleration. This is normal, I believe anyway. After all, more force of resistance was being met. The building nonetheless was destroyed with the use of controlled demolition. A good number of AE911Truth members, however, continue to speak of 7 as if it fully came down at free-fall even after surely having seen David Chandler’s video. For this reason, I wish they would stick to what his excellent analysis says. It’s very easy to understand what he says in it.

        You do well to point out the explosive force with which the tops of the two big towers were destroyed, or certainly one of the two anyway. I think it was both but would need to verify video footage again to be certain. For now, I just think both tops violently exploded and there’s no way that the planes hitting these towers or any fire could feasibly cause this. It had to be done with explosives and those certainly had to be placed prior to the planes hitting these towers.

        Lastly, I learned of this article by you from the September AE911Truth newsletter received on September 2nd. The following is the Web version.


        The following page is a direct link for an excerpt of your article, including the link for it.


      • Even 60 % of free fall would still imply that those heavy materials would come down and not (up as you stated… :-))

        I’m sure that this isn’t too hard to understand…

    • sorgfelt,

      Can you name that person who you say estimated that the WTC buildings that were destroyed on 9/11 came down at around 60% of free-fall velocity or acceleration? If you can, then this would permit readers of your comment to try to verify this. Otherwise, you could potentially be mis-recalling exactly what the person said.

      I don’t know at what acceleration WTC 1 and 2 came down, after the tops were exploded into pulverized concrete dust, and massive steel beams were projected outward, rather than downward; horizontally and upward, but eventually changing to downward. But I believe to recall that they came down in around 14 or 15 seconds. That time, alone, doesn’t say what the acceleration or velocity was, for this would require inclusion of the heights, so distance, and I won’T bother looking those up. After all, it’s clear that controlled demolition had to be used, for it certainly wasn’t the planes hitting these two super towers or any fires burning in them that could’ve caused the destruction of these super structures.

      Dalia Mae is right to point you in the direction of the work of David Chandler. She didn’t use a video published by him, but it was produced by him. His channel is DavidChandler911.


      He has plenty of videos for analyzing the destruction of all three WTC buildings.

  6. All these years down the track and I still shake my head at the majority of people who swallowed that NIST report, government propaganda, media and advertising spin hook line and sinker. Usually level headed or at least reasonably savvy people got lumped in with the kool aid masses to be spun a tissue of lies and happily fell for it! We are still paying the price for this load of shenanigans!

  7. Mr Silverman or Silverstein what ever his name is past owner of the buildings, if I had a loved one that was murdered in one of those buildings he would be on my camera with a lie detector screen behind him in less than a week telling the truth on who he hired to demo the buildings and who in the government knew of this,thus his confession would bring him to trail for mass murder and the people who also were involved. Everyone then would know the truth. believe me he would talk…it is beyond me that the largest mass murder in NY history has been glossed over.

    • I completely agree with you. It can’t be a coincidence that Mr. Silverstein (not Silverman :-)) wasn’t informed by the fireman prior to the collapse.

      There should be no doubt about it if someone orders to pull (destroy) a building that this implies direct involvement.

      In the past, I’ve e-mailed Niels Harrit about the nano-thermite issue which was used to destroy the twin towers and tower 7 deliberately.

      Let there be no doubt about that. I think that after almost 13 years a new, INDEPENDENT, investigation is more than welcome.

      Hereby, I recommend to all people to go visit the website of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth ( http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html).

      These people have done their job and this organization should not be neglected.

      Spread out the word and let’s hope that one day we’ll live in a better world than today 🙂

      • XingFu,

        ae911truth.org is a website to recommend, but there’re also others for fuller education, say, about 9/11 and I mean truly qualitative research or analysis.

        Kevin Ryan’s blog, DigWithin.net

        The first two of those websites also provide pages for other recommendable websites, AE911Truth being one of them.

    • Paul Christin,

      I meant to reply to you about Larry Silverstein and ended up replying to El-Kammo’s comment further above, because my browser evidently wasn’t refreshing fully or another problem occurred. Anyway, my reply for your post regarding Silverstein is a little further above, immediately following the post by El Kammo.

    • Why did Swiss Re, Lloyd’s Zurich Financial, Copenhagen Re, and at least 8 other major insurance companies all pay Larry Silverstein a total of ~$4.68 BILLION if he demolished his own property, pray tell?

    • It hasn’t been; the evil US infidel began killing al Qaeda within a month, and offed the ringleader on May 2, 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan where he’d been hiding for 5+ years with 3 of his wives and 11 of his children.

  8. No mention of Christopher Bollyn’s investigation into the Israel connection? He provides overwhelmingly conclusive circumstantial evidence of Israeli planning and execution of 911. As for Newton’s laws, there’s a more fundamental consideration; namely, the scientific method itself, in which the most obvious cause and the only one known to cause precisely the effect in question was arbitrarily ruled out. And as for the MSM, consider who owns and controls it, bearing in mind the precept that their extraordinary efforts at concealment provide powerful evidence of guilt.

    • Bollyn worked for American Free Press and its or some of its editors apparently are or were anti-Jew, rather than only anti-Zionism as it’s known of today; but, possibly pro-Nazi, as well. I read something about this at either 911review.com or 911.research.wtc7.net years ago. I think Bollyn may’ve published an or some articles with at least some truths about UA 93 on 9/11, but anyone who thinks Israel is top criminal regarding 9/11 is again wrong. Many Americans, f.e., constantly blame Israel for nearly every crime of Washington and this is ridiculous nonsense. AIPAC is very and sickly influential in some respects in the US, and this is outraging; but, Israel doesn’t control Washington and 9/11 is an inside job.

    • A vicious anti-Semite’s “investigation” into Israel’s “connection” to an al Qaeda SUICIDE attack on the evil US infidel? I do hope you’re kidding…

      • Mr Silverstein said what he said. I didn’t say it. He said. “they decided to pull the building”. There is no anti Jewish thing here at all. It is he had inside knowledge that the building was pulled and they watched it collapse. Simple. No discussion. Now what?. Question him and ask him what was going on under oath?
        Thus – let there be an investigation
        NIST was a cover up

        • Believe me, if NIST was a cover up and someone could literally prove that their research was a fraude, there would come new investigation.

          Will you agree with me that your children’s book is not going to convince anyone to start a new investigation ?

          And I sincerely hope that you don’t rely on Gage et al to come over with evidence neither…

          He has had plenty of time for doing so but it never resulted in anything (or do you think that Gage himself has already filed once for court? Think again dear Dalia because it’s not going to happen).

          Meanwhile, you’re supporting HIM (Gage) financially… Easy money for him or do you disagree with that ?

          • Whether Gage is 100% correct or not is IRRELEVANT.
            There has been NO investigation. HE IS ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION. And good on him.
            By the way:
            To get on a plane today you might be swiped with an explosives device – to check if you’re a terrorist.
            DO YOU KNOW
            They did not take that swab device and try it on the rubble. Even though Building 7 pancaked like a perfect demolition and Silverstein said ‘they had to pull it’ – they said there was no evidence of explosives. No we will not look for explosives.
            Next time they ask you to undergo an explosive swab – try say no – you might be hauled off in handcuffs.
            It was a criminal cover up.

        • WRONG, Dalia Mae. He did not say “they decided to pull the building”; he said “…and THEY [the FDNY] made that decision to pull [abandon the firefighting effort because WTC 7 was becoming unsafe].”
          Here are some statements about it from your imaginary FDNY evildoers:
          They’re clear enough that even you can understand them.

  9. Push your beer glass firmly into another and notice the horizontal forces.
    Furthermore, the function of a construction is to transfer forces from one place to another, meaning that horizontal transfers are present. Release a beam that is under tension and watch the horizontal forces.
    Referring to Newton’s first law is pointless, because teher are other laws, like the transfer of energy (f.a. heat)
    I live in Europe, and yes, I know Newton’s laws, and yes. I build highrise buildings, and no, I do not agree with Gage.

    • The name is Larry Silverstein and I don’t know that he played one of the most important roles in the demolition of the WTC towers, 1, 2 and 7. He said to “pull it” with respect to WTC 7 and this continues to be interpreted as “to bring the building down”, f.e., by many people and I believe that there’s good reason for this interpretation. 7, as well as 1 and 2, were destroyed using controlled demolition, so ….

      See 911research.wtc7.net, 911review.com and probably Kevin Ryan’s website or blog, DigWithin.net.

      Silverstein is far from being the sole “elite” to suspect and Kevin Ryan has published excellent work in this regard. There’re also videos with him speaking. CorbettReport.com (corbettreport at YouTube) interviewed him, too.

      • Kevin Ryan deliberately altered Silverstein’s innocuous statement to make it appear that he “made that decision,” when he very clearly said [THEY [the FDNY] made that decision…” The decision was to abandon the firefighting effort, so Ryan lied more than once there.

        • I don’t think it really matters. He had discussed with the fire dept. And ‘they’ decided to pull the building. He didn’t press the button. Someone else did. He just said – yep – there had been so much destruction etc—-spoke to the fire dept—and best to pull the building. The end result is all that matters. Anyone of many people could have relayed that info – we needed to pull the building. THE FACT IS – THEY PULLED THE BUILDING. Now there is one OTHER option ONLY. Maybe as this was a high security very important building housing all white collar crime / CIA stuff etc. Maybe it was pre-planted for explosives in case of war when it was built. As they might do this to strategic buildings. THEN TELL US THAT. Still doesn’t account for massive mushroom explosions on 1 and 2.

        • @Dalia Mae:
          For the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Larry Silverstein said this about WTC 7 on 9/11:

          “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that THEY WERE NOT SURE THEY WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTAIN THE FIRE, and I said, WE’VE HAD SUCH A TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And THEY [the FDNY] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” –L. Silverstein

          -regarding the term “pull it”:
          We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint”
          (check it yourself on any demolition contractor’s web site.)

          What was the Silverstein Properties and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending almost the entire $861 million insurance settlement on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?

          Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime if he publicly admitted to defrauding them, but especially Swiss Re, Copenhagen Re, Zurich Financial, and Lloyd’s?

          How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for the demolition?

          If the explosives were pre-planted, and were what Barry Jennings heard around 10 AM, why was there any discussion in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish it with the other apparently fireproof ones a few stories higher?

          Do real controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?

          Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends?

          Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

          Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business?

          Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” to refer to building demolition using explosives, as I very politely requested?

          Why doesn’t UL agree with Kevin Ryan about the WTC steel, why was his lawsuit thrown out of court, and why did he have to change the wording in Silverstein’s statement to make it appear that he and the FDNY were complicit in a major felony, when Mr. Silverstein clearly and unambiguously said that “THEY,” i.e. the FDNY, made the decision?

          How does the “terrible loss of life”(in the WTC tower collapses) referenced by Silverstein affect a later decision to demolish a burning building across the street with no one in it?

          There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~52′) girder and (~47′) beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a ~200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of ConEd’s equipment. This ~$314.5 million lawsuit by ConEd and a half dozen of its insurance companies:
          was ONLY for NEGLIGENCE, and the plaintiffs LOST. No mention at all in that court summary of secret C/D.

          • They pulled the building – YES… ans as for the article from implosion world. What a bogus document. “Assertion one – it didn’t look like a demo job” What the hell did it look like then: It was not using convention explosive devices – but it does NOT look like a building in just collapse. And for the footprint… please. I haven’t got time to discuss such nonsense. I wonder what they were paid?

        • @Dalia Mae:
          What do building collapses usually look like? Read “It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition” here:
          Is the FDNY now in the explosive demolition business? Why did Silverstein’s DOZEN or more insurers, including Lloyd’s, Copenhagen Re, Zurich Financial, and Swiss Re, all pay him a total of ~$4.68 BILLION for his 9/11-related losses if he publicly admitted to blowing up his property or knowing that the evil FDNY was going to do it?

        • “Regarding the term “pull it”:
          We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with.” -Brent Blanchard of Protec in “A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint”
          ~Agent Smith

          This is irrelevant, Silverstein is not an expert in the demolition industry. The term “pull it” is a generic term for demolition in the public lexicon.

          Further, Silverstein never actually identifies who is on this call from the “Fire Department”, so whoever is on the other end of this call remains a mystery – one that Agent Smith cannot honestly speak to.

        • @hybridrogue1:
          “Agent Smith” didn’t make that statement about the foolishness of claiming that “pull it” is a demolition industry term for explosively demolishing a building; Brent Blanchard of Protec did. Silverstein is not an expert in the demolition industry, and was obviously more interested in his ~$800 million office hi-rise that was burning and on the verge of collapse than in memorizing the name of the FDNY official or underling who called to tell him they were not going to risk more lives fighting the fires.
          You can’t ban me here, roggie, so go back to Craig McKee’s “forum” where you and Craig can lie about the 9/11/2001 al Qaeda suicide attacks on the US unchallenged.

    • Your so-called analogy of pushing a beer glass into another to observe the horizontal forces is RIDICULOUS. The horizontal forces that caused the TOPS of towers 1 and 2 to explode weren’t caused by anything being forced into the towers from their tops and you can’t put a glass into another glass without doing so through the top of the latter glass.

      You can disagree with Richard Gage all you want. There’s nothing new about this. All “official story” pushers do it. What you lack is anything substantial to back up your disagreements.

      Highrise construction is your business, you say. Maybe you should reconsider and go into stand-up comedy, instead. After all, comics don’t have to be serious in what they say.

      • Lucky for you, mikecorbeil, that your ladder will never slide away from underneath you, because in your world horizontal forces caused by vertical loads do not exist.

        • El-Kammo,

          Quote: “Lucky for you, mikecorbeil, that your ladder will never slide away from underneath you, because in your world horizontal forces caused by vertical loads do not exist.”

          I never said that they don’t exist, so you discredit your professional credibility. You didn’t provide a valid analogy but pretend that you did. You can fool some of the people all of the time and some people some of the time, but you won’t fool EVERYONE.

          In this page, we’re talking about the tops of WTC 1 and 2, not some general incidents. The tops violently exploded, upward and outward, i.e., horizontally and in other outward directions. Most of the concrete, if not all of it, was pulverized into dust that was, like for massive steel beams, propelled outward and upward. EVERYONE can easily see this!

          The total weight above where the planes struck didn’t come straight down. This is also easy to understand.

          If you insert a glass into another glass that’s full of liquid, then of course there’ll be some horizontal force, but given that there’s no place for the liquid to be pushed to only in a horizontal direction, for the outer glass would prevent this from happening, liquid will be pushed upward and flow out of the outer glass; assuming there was sufficient liquid in the outer glass to begin with, that is.

          There wouldn’t be EXPLOSION, but this is what happened with the tops of the two WTC towers and this is clearly observable.

          Your argumentation is pitiful. But, we need not worry about it much at all, for many experts have adequately provided analysis and explanations about the tops of WTC 1 and 2 having EXPLOSIVELY been destroyed. Contesting them with the use of invalid analogies only discredits these latter people.

        • It doesn’t matter. The tops of WTC 1 and 2 clearly EXPLODED and this requires explosive force. Explosive force isn’t what you propose with your analogy using drinking glasses.

          People also don’t need to build or design highrises in order to be able to know the relevant physical mechanics, i.e., physics, and you’re normally not going to be a competent constructor if you don’t know and understand the relevant physical mechanics. Structural engineering requires mechanical physics.

      • From this topic:
        “This is what a building collapse looks like”
        Well, this statement implies that all buildings are te same.
        Being a atand-up comedian, as you noted, I state that all animals should fall in the same way, either an elephant or an eagle 🙂

        • An elephant doesn’t and can’t fly, but whilst you may possibly not’ve noticed, eagles definitely do. 🙂

          Your argumentation is balony. You haven’t yet presented a valid argument.

      • “The tops of WTC 1 and 2 clearly EXPLODED and this requires explosive force”.
        Just experienenced an exploding lightbulb.
        Could not find explosives.

      • Mike,
        I studied the collapse of 7 on request of A&E, and I wondered how the buckling column could ever take the core along with it.
        Therefore I asked this question to Ron Brookman, and then it became all clear to me, read answer:

        Dear El-Kammo,

        Thank you for inquiring about the WTC 7 drawings and the NIST hypothesis for progressive collapse. It’s good to hear your perspective as a high-rise builder, and I am pleased to know others are studying these drawings. Obviously not everyone agrees with the NIST hypothesis.

        It’s unfortunate that the girder drawings are missing, but other drawings can give us the information about the girder connections. Here is what I see.
        • Drawing E12/13 shows the columns 75 and 78 are found on drawing 1003.

        Drawing 1003 shows a double row of eight bolt holes in the column web for the girder connection. It does not appear to be full depth for a 40-inch girder. The note under detail S on E12/13 says to provide full-depth connections for all beams framing into the south face of the girder. It does not specify full-depth connections for the girder.

        Drawing 9100 shows the girder connections are header “H” connections found in drawing 901.

        Drawing 901 shows standard header-angle connections with double angles welded to the girder web. These are considered simple framing connections; they are not moment-resisting connections.
        I hope this answers your questions.

        These are considered simple framing connections
        These are considered simple framing connections
        These are considered simple framing connections
        These are considered simple framing connections

        Simple framing Mike

      • Mike,
        I asked Richard Gage to stop telling the world that 7 died in 6,5sec., because it was actually 18,5sec.. The only thing he did was removing the link “rapid onset of collapse”, he did not change his powerpoint

        • Richard Gage is a liar, plain and simple. The EXTERIOR of WTC 7 took ~8.5 seconds to collapse, and is impossible to determine to 1/10-second accuracy because the bottom floors can’t be seen in any of the surveillance videos of the collapse; buildings in the foreground and dust clouds later in the collapse obscure the view.
          Anyone stupid enough to try to divine the cause of a building collapse by timing it should at least get the time right.

      • Mike,
        We all learn while consuming information and gaigning knowledge.
        Once I supported the A&E statement about 7, I tried to find mis- interpretations/assumptions in NIST, but could not.
        We both learn, but unfortunately we learn in seperate ways.
        Please, do not call me a stand-up comedian, because I have put up 40 years of experience along numerous hours of spare time in WTC7, please note that I have not affended you, or your opinon in any way.
        Arguments are the best ways.
        Calling out loud that explosive evidence is found, means that the discussion can be closed.
        Evidence is evidence, go to court and hang them all.
        No longer Powerpoints by Gage needed.

      • Mike, now I have to quote you:
        “The tops violently exploded, upward and outward, i.e., horizontally and in other outward directions.”
        Let us take a view on upward directions, seems strange in a downward collapse, does it not?
        Take a 6 yard board and support it at zero and 2/3.
        Put a brick on the other end of zero and jump between the 2 supports.
        The brick will fly up
        No offence to Newton, this is science, this is mechanics.

      • Your boy Gage is already in stand-up comedy. If you want even more laughs, ask him and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core.

        • albury,
          That’s exactly the problem with Gage and Harrit.
          They don’t feel the burdon of proof, they lay that upon we, us, others. They demand, no more no less.
          But what if a new investigation will take place?
          Who do they demand to do it?
          And what if they again disagree?
          Do they than demand a new new investigation?
          I say, Elvis is dead, get over it.

          • Get over what – Now if Elvis was Murdered. Maybe there would’ve been an investigation? Anyway – what is the problem having an investigation. Are you unsure what it might do to your world view?

  10. Do not think that I am a stand-up comedian, I have put in lots of experiance and work into your doubts.
    See the answer of Niels Harit on the question of a friend of mine, and note that he states that the burdon of proof is not on him !!!

    Dear *******
    The question is incorrectly asked.
    The observations CLEARLY indicate that BOTH explosives (course of collapses) and incendiaries (thermite, at least two different kinds) were used.
    It is not our duty to explain why, and in general we should not speculate in hypothetical blast scenarios beyond our observations.
    In my opinion, thermite/thermate charges were used to cut a great deal of the steel columns in the minutes prior to the collapses (when the explosives used).
    You know all the observations supporting this, sulfidation of steel, molten iron pouring out of WTC2, molten iron in the rubble etc.
    The thermite is noiseless. Without them, even more exoplosives should have been used. The perpetrators decided what the optimum distribution between these two materials were.
    Where the nanothermite fit into this picture, we do not know.
    I believe, that it is responsible for the rocket-like properties of the fragments being hauled out of the towers (see Chandlers work). All the fragments have white (aliminum oxide) smoke trails after them. Also, the high-temperatures of the pyroclastic clouds, the corroding effects of the dust on the cars, the three-months ongoing fires in the rubble etc. points on some composite material, that is nanothermite.
    Debunkers always demand a full explanation of us.
    It is not our duty.
    If they believe in the official conspiracy theory, the burden of proof is on them.
    Keep on figthing for truth.
    It is the most important fight in your lifetime.

    • “Debunkers always demand a full explanation of us.
      It is not our duty.
      If they believe in the official conspiracy theory, the burden of proof is on them.”

      Euhh…., this is a turnover of the justice system.

    • “Do not think that I am a stand-up comedian..”~El-Kammo

      I have no doubt that you are no comedian, you are a serious shill and disinformant purposely clogging this thread with agitprop. And you have overplayed your hand and expose yourself in the massive attack you have made here.

      As Dalia shows quite simply and upfront, it is absurd to assert that these buildings fell through themselves and the massive core structures of steel box columns.


  11. Again from Niels Harrit:
    “Also, the high-temperatures of the pyroclastic clouds (…)”

    Pyroclastic means hot (2000c) and fast (speed of sound)
    The formal inhabitants of Pompei, near the vulcano Vesuvius, knew all about this

      • OMG, the courts are bought, along with Silverstein, the NYFD, the Port Authority, the BBC, the FAA, the customs, the secret sevices, the army, the airforce etc., and they all keep silent.
        Only a handfull (2000) knows about this.
        No wonder that demolition theories are rejected 🙂

      • Dalia,

        It is blatantly obvious that El-Kammo and XingFu are disinformant agents, shills and toadies from a Sunsteinian disinformation team.

        Don’t let them get you down. Anyone with a smidgen of lucidity knows what they are doing here.

        \][// – Willy Whitten

        • Anyone who speaks to the facts and physics of this case is called a “9/11 truther nut “m giving away the fact that they are disinformant agents, shills and toadies from a Sunsteinian disinformation team.

          Agent Smith is well aware of this. I see he has found a virgin site to despoil with his vile agitprop, after being banned by most of the well known 9/11 sites for his disingenuous harassment techniques.

      • Then I will try to help you with the answers.
        It won’t be real time, due to the time differance, I am Dutch(Amsterdam) which is 1 hour later than zero(Greenwich(GMT))

      • Dalia,

        “I will be posting up a series 911 questions”

        Not so long ago a Belgian thruther plunged a list of 40 “undisputable” questions on us and our Dutch forum, challenging us.
        Within hours we answered 37 questions on the spot. What shoud remain would be a list of 3, but see what happened:
        1 week later some 911 internet scientist “invented”(read re-discovered) the list of 40 on the internet.
        There should be an F5 on the internet.
        Now you are learning children that something is wrong, so they start to Google, and surprise, they find a list with 40 “undisputable” questions about 911, and there we go again.
        I am groing old, I am at the end of my carreer, I cannot answer all the questions that your kids are going to ask.
        I am not stupid, neither are the people in my project team, I, we, thourougly compared the NIST report about 7 with the actual drawings of Cantor and Frankel Steel, the drawings of the FOIA. And we take the NIST hypothesis as the most probable.
        Please watch my last and final project, done in 2017,:

        • Maybe El-Kammo – you might a dis-information guy with so many replies. Without Harrit, Gage or anyone. I looked at this myself — made up my own mind by watched the videos of the collapse in slow motion… I don’t mind if Harrit is wrong on his theory. I believe that irrelevant. WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. I looked at the slabs flying out laterally c(then arcing by gravity) for over 200 feet away from the building. JUST FRIGGING IMPOSSIBLE. I also made up my own mind talking to a coroner : Take the Bones on the Duetche bank building about 45 floors up. People inside the towers should have been crushed and remained more or less inside the towers. BUT NO – their bodies were obliterated – pulverized – splintered into particles less than 1/4 inch…. No with the building – no the exploded out BECOMING PART OF THE DUST flying hundreds of feet away and landing on the top of the bank. to be discovered many years later. hundreds of mini- fragments. If there wasn’t an explosive force – they would have stayed in the building. crushed.

          Gage or Harrit don’t have to be 100% right. NIST is plain wrong. So let the investigation begin.

    • Why don’t “Richard Gage and [his] over 2,200 architects and engineers” INVESTIGATE THE 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES themselves if they disagree with the NIST findings? This isn’t investigating:

      • They have investigated. Individual members have written papers, and they have written exhaustively about all this. EXHAUSTIVELY. But the mainstream media and governments maintain their ignorance. I doubt there is a politician in Canberra that knows three skyscrapers fell – that they were doing wargames that morning simulating planes flying into buildings. I doubt any of them would have heard the name SUSAN LINDAUER – or about Able Danger – or heard what the 100+ witness said when they escaped from the buildings. EXPLOSIONS. The suppression of evidence has astounded me – and thus the populace is kept IGNORANT of the many many facts.

      • The funny thing about that video is that, if Gage had turned it around and had dropped the bigger part onto the smaller part, nothing would have happened in that case either. So its just utter junk science.

      • Dalia,

        You may not be aware of the fact that Albury Smith is and infamous disinformation agent stalking 9/11 blogs for the last ten years at the least.

        I have encountered his BS on every blog I have ever read on this subject. He is also one of the most frequently banned agents on the Internet.

        You seem to have struck a nerve at Sunstein Central, you have a full-court press of cointelpro agenteur attacking your blog.

    • “Richard along with more than 2000 very intellectual, analytically minded people….”
      Meaning that millions of real builders all over the world are stupid?

      • I’ve decided El Kammo that I think you must be either

        1. a disinformation agent or

        2. too scared to unlock from your world view.

        3. you haven’t looked at all the other evidence

        I’ve asked many many intelligent people about 911… and collapsing towers. Hardly anyone has heard of Building 7; susan lindauer, able danger, the war games, and i could go on and on.

        I am so grateful that people like Richard Gage et al put their intellect and integrity at question what the MAINSTREAM MEDIA deliberately have suppressed… Hundreds of eye witnesses.

        Analyse Bobby McIlvaines son’s death in the north tower – and see the devastation of the lobby. BS that it was caused by the fire ball down the lifts.

        You have inspired me to do another post on the bones.

      • Dalla,

        Richard Gage has painted himself into a corner, so he will never admit that he was mistaken, so he keeps up appearances. If he ever wants to look for a real job again, he know they will never hire him, just because of the cardbox boxes he uses for proof, which is utterly redicilous. Like i said before, if he had dropped the larger box on top of the smaller box, the result would have been the same.

        The Collapse of WTC 7 was shown on many news channels that day. The reason why so many people dont remember it, is because no one died in that collapse, because the Fire department had cordenned off the place because it was unstable. They used equipment to measure the stability of the building and it turned out it was bad.

        And regarding WTC1 and 2, how did more than a dozen people survive the collapse of the buildings inside the staircase if explosives were used?

    • The NIST reports do not regard the US only.
      We, in Europe, have build simular buildings, what makes it our concern as well.
      We, the Europeans, the founders of your soil, are not stupid.
      We concluded that the NIST hypothyses is the most likely.
      And we note that those buildings were build in the 70’s, and therfore desingned in the 60’s,we learn while we build.

      • Oh this is the old tired logical fallacy that every architect and engineer that has not signed the AE911Truth petition is automatically a supporter of the official story.

        Jaytje this is an OLD, TIRED, and totally illogical argument.

  12. Quote:
    “It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP – with sophisticated explosives.”

    Thus the conclusion should be : NO use of explosives !

    Or can anyone show me a video of a controlled demolition where 10 surrounding buildings are damaged due to the collapse ?

  13. This is one that the explosive lovers have to answer:
    Working order of construction steel is 1] clean it with high pressure grid 2] apply primer (within 24h) 3] apply fire resisting material.
    Now tell me, should the nanostuf be applied before or after step 3 ?
    Niels harrit does not know, he feels that it is not up to him to explain, duhh

  14. “All future profits of all the books will go back into producing more books like this.”

    Bit scary, cause it is based on hypotesis and/or assumption and hear say.

    Don’t like this

  15. “It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP – with sophisticated explosives.”
    There is no material going upwards. It may look like its going upwards, but thats because of the trailing of the dust. The side walls just fall down(peels like a banana).

    Do you know what kind of explosives they use, when taking down a steel framed structure? They use cutter charges to cut the columns and some regular explosives to kick the columns out of the line of load. There is no explosives to blow stuff upwards. Not even in fantasy land.

    • You’re wrong there. I looked at a video slow motion on the editing table – THINGS, materials are flying upwards. Though you are correct as the building fall it leaves dust trails. But look at the slabs. I tracked just one of the slabs. They must be the 4 inch concrete floors… It comes out sideways…. then arcs down. Doing a comparative measurement it looks like 200 x 100 feet and they were 4 inches thick… within a very short space of time this slab (do the math yourself 150 – 250 ton???) is over 200 feet away from the building OH MY GOD – UNBELIEVABLE———- JUST FRIGGING AMAZING THAT A COLLAPSING BUILDING (by fire melting some beams that were the beams done in the fire upgrade) is shooting slabs (many of them) so far from the building.

        • Look at this one

          at 1.04 you can see one of the slabs – flying out…. On other angles this i believes works out to be over 200 feet from the building.
          Go back to 0.29 to see how far this slab had to shoot out… by the 0.44 when you really start to see it emerge from the dust it must already be about 100 feet plus… I have seen other slabs where you can see it flying out sideways….

        • Dalla, the top of the building rotated before it plunged down, so its pushing alot of stuff outside the footprint(Disproving the claim that it fell into its own footprint). Its not a neat collapse, but very chaotic. There is no way you can predict or claim that a building has to collapse in a certain way, because there are millions of connections in a building like that, so a million uncertanties. Everything in the building has effect on the way the building collapses, so it is impossible ro copy or to calculate.

        • as you can see in the video i posted, you can clearly see the outer columns laying on the floor, because that peeled out like a banana. Thats what you are seeying in your video. Not slabs of floors being ejected outward. Why would they want to eject the floors outside anyway? What was the reasoning behind that? You would have to install rockets on the sides of the floor slabs, to eject it from the building, which is redicilous.

        • To be clear,the floors were in a downward motion because of the gravity, so you would have to act a force upon the floor slab to push it outwards, greater than gravity. So i suppose someone has made a calculation showing how much force is needed to eject the slabs outside of the buildings footprint. And how can you eject an entire floor slab when there are 47 columns in the middle of the building? It would have been 2 small parts of slabs.

        • One last thing. Why did great portions of both internal structures(The cores) keep standing for a few seconds, after the rest of both buildings had already collapsed? Care to explain that away? Did they forget to rig that part with explosives?

          Looking forward to your answers, but I need to go out now for the rest of the afternoon.

          • That’s just fine… it doesn’t have to fall perfectly. It is messy. Many demolitions are messy. This was different as the demolitions were initiated from high up and not like the traditional demos.

        • It isnt a floor slab! Its the outsiude of the building thats collapsing. Like i said before, why in gods name would they want to blow an entire slab outside the footprint, and what kind of explosives did they use for that??????? What could be the benefit of blowing out an entire floor slab? Are you really that brainwashed that you cant come up with a simple answer on that? So just give us a simple reason as to why they would want to blow out an entire floor slab(Which is impossible, due to the construction of the building). And dont give me an answer as to yes, that had to be researched by NIST.

        • And why would they want to demo a building from high up? Isnt it easier to start somewhere at the bottom, so gravity can work in their favor? It has to be the most stupid kind of demo team in the world to do it like you claim they did.

  16. “It is easy to OBSERVE tons of steel and material shooting OUTWARDS and UPWARDS. Conclusion: This building has been BLOWN UP – with sophisticated explosives.”

    There is no material going upwards. It may look like its going upwards, but thats because of the trailing of the dust. The side walls just fall down(peels like a banana).

    Do you know what kind of explosives they use, when taking down a steel framed structure? They use cutter charges to cut the columns and some regular explosives to kick the columns out of the line of load. There is no explosives to blow stuff upwards. Not even in fantasy land.

    • –“Do you know what kind of explosives they use, when taking down a steel framed structure?”~Jaytje

      DET Cord, RDX are common demolition charges.

      –“There is no explosives to blow stuff upwards. Not even in fantasy land.”~Ibid

      Bullshit, it depends on where the explosion takes place in relation to the material blown. If the explosion is underneath a section, of course it will be blown upward as well as outward.

      The more you and your comrades prattle on here the more your stupid conjecture is open for ridicule.

      • It was a steel framed building, So they would have to use detcord to cut the columns. The detcord does not blow anything away but cuts the columns at a speed of 8000 meters per second i believe. So nothing is blown upwards. There was no need to blow up concrete walls with normal explosives, because there were no concrete walls insiders the Towers So you are left with detcord.

        It’s obvious you watch to much tv…

        • The newest sock-puppet jaccohorst says I watch too much TV {misspelling too in the bargain.} But the fact is I don’t have a TV, and haven’t for a great many years.

          Detcord is used to separate the the column at an angle so that the upper portion slides down at a specific direction – usually to pull the outer columns middle columns inward as the collapse sequence begins. RDX is used to fragment the materials and blow them apart in military demolitions, which are not concerned with surrounding damage, as are civilian controlled demolitions.

          The demolition of the towers was obviously calibrated to demolish the Towers utterly. Part of this utter destruction would entail conflagration, which is likely the role of thermetics. There may have been no concrete walls but there were miles of concrete poured into the floor-pans – that was obviously blown to bits.

          But this was obviously a military operation, and the great probability of the new solgel explosives having been used in the operation to assist in certain explosive work is noted in the Jones-Harrit investigation.
          The conflagration materials such as the thermates were also there to “eat the pile” and destroy as much of the evidence of what had happened as possible.

          Again go to the ‘Controlled Demolition and the Demise of WTC’ page on my blog that I give above. There you will find citations for the military solgel research and findings.

          • Excuse me that English is not my primary language. I am sure you are great in any other language, you being autodidact an all.

            And why would they blow up the floors???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

            Are you really that dense in believing that for some reason, they needed to blow up the floors????????????????????????


      • But what happened to the use of thermite? Thats not an explosive and only cuts the columns. So thermite was not used if you claim that entire floor slabs were blown out of the footprint of the building. So Gage is telling lies with his thermite claims we can deduct from this.

        • Have an investigation and work out what it was…

          But jacohorst you seem to be fitting the perfect pattern of a dis-info blogger. Lots of little comments cramming the airways with bunkum questions that don’t really quite make sense… attacking a phrase there and scientific fact here. All trying to tie the reader in knots. eg: “So all the People on the ground floor didnt know what they were investigating. …. Because the higher ups only had that knoweledge. Yeh that makes sense. …” WHAT??? OR “But what happened to the use of thermite? Thats not an explosive and only cuts the columns” WHAT AGAIN – WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAS USED… SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE GIVEN IT A GOOD SHOT. Again investigate. things blew out – and I’m not replying to you again.

          • Why would i want an investigation? Do you actually know how research works? You claim that the official NIST report is not correct. You are the one that claims thermite and explosives are used(According to Gage), So YOU have to be the one that has to do the investigation. YOU have to come up with a report that explains how and where the thermite and explosives were used. I am perfectly happy with the NIST report, so why would I want a new investigation?

          • Anyway, my work is done here. So good luck with your search(Just asking questions is lingo for search in truther language) for the truth. If you don’t like the truth, keep asking more questions, but by all means, never give an answer to any difficult questions!

            Gage will be so happy with all the cash he receives from your book sales(I am sure you already sold millions of em), so he can enjoy another nice vacation. I am sure he will send you a lovely postcard.

            Bye the Bye.

        • jaccohorst is ignorant of the explosive properties of the newest solgels, of which ‘super-thermite’ or ‘thermate’ is but one specific product.
          jaccohorst is only aware of the very surface information most commonly available and obviously hasn’t done any deep research of his own – and is only reading from the agitprop script he and his comrades are supplied with, along with there cover ID’s.

          • Please enlighten us with all your autodidact knowledge about sol gels. So I am sure you can give us a link to these so called sol gels of which ‘super-thermite’ or ‘thermate’ is but one specific product.

            Did you use those for creating your sculptures? Is that how you have so much knowledge about the sol gels?

            What do you think? Was this answer also in the agitprop script?

  17. If Gage is so sure he is right, why does he not start his own investigation? Instead he uses all the cash he recieves from donors, to travel around the world and speak to other 9/11 truthers. Or spends cash on ads in New York, or spend time and money creating videos.

    The sad thing is, that he will never can or will do an independent investigation, because before there was an official report on WTC 7, he had already concluded it was brought down by demolition, so he is pre judged,

    • “The sad thing is, that he will never can or will do an independent investigation, because before there was an official report on WTC 7, he had already concluded it was brought down by demolition, so he is pre judged..”~Jaytje

      You misframe the issues in such a way as to build a totally disingenuous rhetorical argument; There HAS been and independent investigation by individuals all around the world that has revealed the ‘official narrative’ to be a thin tissue of lies.

      The conclusion that WTC7 was brought down by demolition, is based on actual evidence both visual, testimonial, and physical.
      From the very first investigation and report by FEMA:

      In May of 2002 FEMA released its World Trade Center Building Performance Study. And although it was a “half-baked farce [Manning],” the only thing of merit that got through the editing by the perpetrators of this farce was:

      APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination – Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, R. D. Sisson, Jr. of Worcester Polytechnic Institute

      It is in this examination that the first evidence of ‘Thermite Arson’ is revealed in this report by the discovery of iron – aluminum rich microspheres, and the signature of eutectic corrosive attack on the steel samples tested.
      A further exposition is given by Jerry Lobdill, June 2007:



  18. Who wrote this page of the childrens book? Was it Niels Harrit?
    This page should be removed because the children should await the “findings” of Harrit, till proven to be true.
    And it was Australia that in 2nd opinion concluded that Harrit had discoverd the primer used by the Port Authority.
    Furthermore the thermo reaction of the iron spheres, as noted by Harrit, was by far too low to to the damage that gage imlies, read thesus of harrit and look at the potential energy in the spheres, measured in Joules.
    Not enough to lite your cigarette.

      • So Niels Harrit gets lost and starts yelling something, Richard Gage finds his yelling convenient, an Australian lab puts a lid on Harrit (never heard from him again) and in an Australian book for children the Australian lab is put aside to make the yelling of Harrit and Gage the thruth.
        Those children have a lot of Google to do.

        • The page in the childrens book should be like this, after moderation:

          ONE scientist, named Niels harrit, looked at the dust under a microscope, “Mmm, couple of little iron balls” HE said.
          HE read, HE reasoned, did not review, instead HE decided to make people pay for his findings.
          HE prodded, poked and probed to find a way to make more money on why the buildings went Boom and Bang and collapsed so fast, so he found Richard Gage, a nice man with a fancy title, Architect, who told him not to bother with Australian laboratory that would not agree with the nice mister Harrit.

        • Might be good for the children to know that:

          The fancy university where the nice Mr. Harrit worked as a professor, said BOEH to him, and sent him away.
          Also a couple of nice people with fancy titles, who worked in a laboratory in Australia said BOEH to him.
          The only person that said Ahhh, was the nice Mr. Gage.

        • Might be good for little children like El-Kammo to know that Niels Harrit did NOT loose his job at the University of Copenhagen.

      • Dear Dalia,

        I have only read your postings on this website (and not your book) but I suppose that your book is based on evidence (or so may I hope) ?

        My son is 7 years old but (as far as my best recollection goes) they don’t teach any physics yet in the 2nd grade. (although that you state on your website that your book is suitable for children from 5 up to 11 years…

        This comes over to me as if you’re afraid that a 12 year old might debunk your book 🙂

        Please stop abusing the lack of childrens knowledge of physic by telling them lies.

        I’m sure that you’ve put a lot of energy in writing the book but it has also come to my understanding that you, too, lack knowledge about physics (as Richard Gage… see his experiment with the cardboard boxes).

        Besides of that, the only one who will really benefit from your book is (surprise, surprise) :

        Richard Gage

        Or am I wrong if say that half of the revenues of YOUR book goes to Architects & Engineers ???

        Tell me : Cui bono ?

        • With all the other books no problem. I do say here with this one “read with adult supervision”. I am in no way worried if a 12 year old wants to debunk the book. The book is not a physics lesson. It a lesson in being able to be open minded. So that we can be open to myths (and possible lies) being fed to us. I would suggest you look through my other posts on 911. Look at clips from susan lindauer, from general wesley clarke who was head of NATO forces. Then you will know why there is no investigation.
          Look up april gallop vs Cheney. If I remember correctly Bush’s cousin was on the bench.
          Yes I will be donating to ae911truth.org
          And I do this blog out of frustration – not money
          I wrote the books because the future is our kids and maybe our kids have a chance of not being brainwashed by mainstream media.

      • Dear Dalia,

        First of all I wish to thank you for your answers. I appreciate it a lot and I respect that you can “admit” that your books are no physics books for children and that they should be read with the assistance of an adult.

        I also understand that you’ve written these books out of frustration… I guess because you want that people all over the world KNOW the truth.

        But please don’t be offended if other people are trying to do the very same thing as you…

        I remember very well that at the time of the attacks on the USA that I was shocked but I didn’t pay much attention to it in the years to come (2001 – 2004).

        So I guess I may say that I wasn’t brainwashed by the MSM.

        However, somewhere late 2004 or 2005, I came back from a trip to the US and when I went to a shop in the airport I saw a pile of books of the 9/11 Commission Report.

        Since the flight back home to Europe would take some hours, I decided to buy the report as merely reading material on the plane.

        At first, after reading the report, I had some questions about the timelines that were stated but it wasn’t until a couple of years later that I stumbled upon an online discussion about 9/11.

        That’s where my search for the truth really has begun.

        Today, I know a lot more about 9/11 than I did back in 2004/2005.

        Please do not forget that information was rather scarce back then and it was the time that, if I’m not mistaken that the film Loose Change was a huge succes. It made many people doubt about the official version.

        On the other hand, Loose Change has known several modifications/versions and today Dylan Avery no longer stands behind his assumptions. He has admitted this during an interview a couple of years ago and many truth seekers were furious at him… He didn’t care and I don’t think that he has been bought off. He has continued making film productions (but no longer about 9/11).

        This is becoming a rather long posting but all I really would like to know from you is one thing :

        Have you read the NIST reports ? And if so, did you fully understand how the towers were built ?

        I’m asking you this question because I think that it’s very relevant to the discussion that we are having.

        Don’t get me wrong… I, myself, am 41 years old. I’m not a structural engineer but I’ve read the NIST report.

        And every time I came accross something that I didn’t understand, I made a note of it.

        I ended with a list of a little more than 100 questions/remarks and with that list I went to a structural engineer who also had questioned the collapses at the time (so he wasn’t bought of at all).

        Together, after a discussion of about 10 hours, we concluded that those buildings weren’t built as strong as we thought before and that a collapse due to structural damage and fire wasn’t that unlikely…

        Or in other words, there’s more reason to believe the NIST report than any other report that I’ve seen thus far.

        That’s how I see it.

        You know, as with your books you say that they should be read under parental guidance.

        I’d like to know if you’ve read the NIST report under structural engineering guidance :-).

        Hoping for an honest answer from you.

        Kind regards,


        • I have only skimmed the report. I got so angry when I read briefly about the fire balls coming down causing the explosion in the basement. What absolute BS. I have read some reports disproving NIST. But my basis for my belief over 911 comes from maybe 20 different points of evidence. And structural is only one or 20 factors. I was taught in my BSc Hons to never make assumptions. It is very late here now. But I say let there be an investigation so that experts can discuss. We are both not engineers. NIST was a report not an open investigation. They spent years thinking how they would explain it.

          But I will post on EVIDENCE OF BONE FRAGMENTS. With that there is no discussion in this area of how we are built and how bodies are crushed. But you have to truly believe in miracles when our bodies can miraculously fly out of a window ….. Then across 3 – 400 feet and land on a roof 43 storeys up. More soon.

        • Its impossible you have read any report disproving NIST, because they don’t exist. I have not seen any report disproving anything NIST has put in their report. That’s the way you disprove a report, by coming with a better report. This still has not happened, else Gage et al would not be calling for a new investigation now would they?

          And why was that strange about the bone fragments? Did you miss the explosion when the plane hit the building? Are you an expert on explosions so you know exactly how bodies should react when they are in the middle of a huge explosion? Please inform us on your knowledge.

          And why is it weird to have a fireball coming through an elevator shaft? You say its bullshit, but that’s all you say. Why is it BS? Do you have some information on why it is BS?

        • Hey Dalia,

          Let s assume for arguments sake there was an explosive used in the basement that caused the explosion. What use did it have? The towers did not collapse right after those explosions, big parts of both cores of the buildings collapsed after the rest had already collapsed, so the explosions did not effect the core. So why did they set of explosives that had no effect at all? Could you explain that to me?

  19. Yep this post has had tons of comments by two or more people – plastering one comment after the next to try plug up the commentary. (I know that up to a 1000 dis-info bloggers were paid in the earlier years to confuse the ‘truth’ movement.)

    So El Kammo at al. Forget the truth for the moment. What about just plain DUE LEGAL PROCESS – REGARDING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. And then with a full investigation – which would probably take about a decade – as there is so much evidence – and by then most of those involved might have passed on – maybe some of the truth might come out.

    • There were several major investigations into what happened. Like NIST for WTC1, 2 and 7. The FBI with Penttbom, ASCE on the Pentagon collapse, and several other reports. Just because you dont like the answers those reports gave you, doesn’t mean it was not a thorough investigation. And in effect, you are accusing all those thousands of people who worked on those reports and findings, on working to hide the truth, and in almost 13 years, no one has come out and testified they were part of the conspiracy. No one has any remorse or whatsoever. Don’t you relaize how stupid that sounds? 13 years on, and not a shred of evidence had been brought to justice.

      • Maybe Gage is relying on children’s books nowadays to bring out the truth to justice… 🙂

        The least we can say is that he offers the same book on HIS website… I wonder if any of those 2000+ so called Architects & Engineers are going to buy this book from his website. In a way, you could say that he has not that much respect for all these professionals if he thinks that their skills don’t go beyond the capabilities of 5 to 11 years old children, right ?

        Maybe it’s an idea for debunkers to publish a book with nice little drawings to make people like Gage understand that real life isn’t a cartoon.

        (as in “The Three Tall Towers”… I wonder if Dalia Mae wasn’t thinking of “The Three Little Piggies” when se chose that title)

        After all these years, it has become clear that Gage still thinks that it was some kind of big, bad wolf who has blown up the towers… 🙂

      • “And in effect, you are accusing all those thousands of people who worked on those reports and findings, on working to hide the truth, and in almost 13 years, no one has come out and testified they were part of the conspiracy.”~Jaytje

        What a dolt you are Jaytje the toadyboy. You pretend not to understand compartmentalization in hierarchical structures such as government and corporatist agencies. Knowledge distributed on the “need to know” basis. The direction by ‘management’ and ‘following orders’ in segmented topical and contextual aspects.

        Only those at the top of these organizations understand the agenda. Those underlings that may have some suspicions one way or another are conditioned to go along to get along.

        The observation that “no one has come out and testified they were part of the conspiracy.” is so jejune as to be counted as diaper wad.

        You are a hack Jaytje, you have nothing but the same tired old script that has been going around for these many years.

        You ask how we might suppose you are paid for your agitprop work on the web. It would be completely conjecture on my or Dalia’s part to guess – and it doesn’t matter in the slightest.

        What matters is that you are totally exposed by your flagrant overbearing techniques of making a tsunami of commentary as though you “life depends on” convincing the world of this untenable lie known as the “Official Narrative of 9/11”

        • Lol. So all the People on the ground floor didnt know what they were investigating. …. Because the higher ups only had that knoweledge. Yeh that makes sense. …

        • Good comment hybridrogue – Yep Jaytje et al I’m sure has heard of many whistle-blowers like susan lindauer. But she got the patriot act slammed in her face. Yep they they so played their cards as patsy’s to the official line

    • Do you think that those alleged desinfo agents are being paid by the hour or per comment… ?

      Just being curious…

      By the way : you seem to be well informed about the existance of thousands of those desinfo agents. Do you have an address for me… I might just as well apply for a job during the weekends… Sounds tempting to me to share my knowledge on your website and getting paid for it too.

      As long as “they” don’t force me to tell lies, I wouldn’t have a problem with earning some extra money 🙂

      P.S. : Do they pay in Euro… 🙂

  20. Ok Dalia, here are some questions for you.

    Who should perform the new investigation?
    So who should investigate the collapse of the buildings?
    Who should investigate the hijacking of the planes?
    Who should investigate the lightpoles at the Pentagon that were knocked over by the plane?
    Who should investigate the hijackers?

    Just a few simple questions that i am sure you have an answer for.

    It can’t be Gage et al, because they are clearly biased. Before NIST even finished their reports, they had already concluded that it was explosives and later on thermite that had caused the collapses of the buildings.

  21. @Dalia

    First of all, I find it rather annoying that I’can’ reply on all postings (in some postings, the “reply” button doesn’t appear which it makes it difficult to react to other people.

    On the other hand, the notification by e-mail when someone makes a new posting is really GREAT and works fine.

    On topic : you state that you find it strange that bodies were found on the roofs of the buildings after the towers collapsed.

    Who told you that those bodies came there DURING the collapse ?

    Ladder 10 (the nearest fire post to arrive at the scene) made reports of several dead bodies on the Streets when they arrived.

    Maybe, some of those bodies on the roofs and the Streets were catapulted out of the plane and/or the building when the planes made their way through the buildings.

    Why would this be too farfetched ?

    • @Dalia

      Also, people at ground level were also blown away when the towers came down.

      Why would this be impossible IN the buildings ?

      On one hand you want us to believe that complete floors could have been blown out… And on the other hand you try telling that this would not have been possible for mere human beings (or parts of human beings for that matter).

      Don’t you see the contradiction in what you are trying to tell to those little children ?

      • “On one hand you want us to believe that complete floors could have been blown out… And on the other hand you try telling that this would not have been possible for mere human beings (or parts of human beings for that matter).”~XingFu

        Your reading comprehension skills are obviously under par XingFu, Dalia is positing that the it was indeed the explosions that blew those body parts onto the rooftops of surrounding buildings. Yes explosives powerful enough to blow concrete and steel to smithereens would certainly do the same to any biological entities in the blast zone.

        Just a question for you XingFu, why to you suppose that they hire fruitcakes like you and your pals here to pile tons of garbage on blog threads such as these?

        Have you read Sunstein’s book on “cognitive dissonance”? Do you realize that if there is the remote possibility that you are sincere in your arguments here – that you would certainly be suffering from this mental/emotional malady yourself?
        Yes indeed crackerjack, you are either a crackpot or a agent provocateur. And those choices aren’t at all exclusive. Dull bulbs such as yourself make some of the best agitprop boys, because you are “true believers”.

        • Hybridrogue1,

          I beg your pardon ? You’re calling me a crackerjack, crackpot, an agent provocateur, a dull bulb, a fruitcake, not able to read…

          All those insults in only ONE posting and the best part is that you get compliments on doing so from (y)our beloved webmaster Miss Dalia Mae.

          What is it with truthers that causes you people to start insulting another person ?

          Did you see me do that ??? Nope… So what gives you the right to insult me ?

          Is it merely bad manners or just a lack of arguments/knowledge.

          I bet it’s both.

          Anyway, to answer your question : you don’t need explosives to blow people out of a building. Air pressure will do the trick as well 🙂

          (I hope that you’re aware of the fact that the twin towers were mostly filled with “air)

  22. Why didn’t NIST fulfill it’s mandate to explain the global collapse of the World Trade Towers? The stopped short at what they term; “poised for collapse” – that is from the time the planes crash to the point where the floors effected by the crashes began movement.

    This is in itself breach of contract and scientific fraud.

    • It is clear you don’t understand what they needed to do.


      See page 15, section 4. So they did exactly what was mandated. Even the comity was smart enough to understand that you can’t model the entire collapse of the buildings, because of to many factors. NIST addressed the total collapses anyway in section 1.6 of their report.


      See 9.4.4 and on.

      • Jaytje you are obviously obsessed in clogging the commentary thread. Forget the structure. The officials never address the bone fragments – because they couldn’t bamboozle their way around stats, facts and diagrams. next post.

        • Yeh, lets forget the official reports on the collapses of the WTC buildings. And why would they need to address the bonefragments? They did DNA testing on them, so what else do you need? When the planes hit the buildings there was a big fiery explosion, or did you miss that part? Or did you miss the image taken just after the collapses on the top of the Bank?


          You can see debris from the building on top of the Bank, so I am guessing, thats how the bone fragments came to be there.

      • Jaytje,
        It’s clear you don’t understand the definition of “truncated”, which is; “cut off at” “only from this to that portion of a body” etc.

        “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below impact area to the top of the structure. WTC1 was truncated at floor 91,WTC2 was truncated at floor 77.”
        The so-called “global model” was NOT global. You have it in NIST’s own words.
        9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation
        “Failure of the south wall in WTC1 and the east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above it to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by downward movement the story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced from several videos from several vantage points.[]
        [Note: These assertions are conjecture based on video imagery, it is not drawn from experimentation or modeling. Again this rhetoric is giving the same message as my original quote:

        “They stopped short at what they term; “poised for collapse”

        Thus the following is again assertion based on conjecture as well:
        “The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. the potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb the energy of deformation.”
        . . . . . . . .
        This assertion is absolutely preposterous when one considers the actual massive intact structure below.
        NIST has not only failed in it’s stated and legally binding mandate to “to explain the global collapse of the World Trade Towers”, but they fudged input data to create the so-called “collapse initiation” which would not cause the failures under normal gravity inputs and were therefore “pushed to extremes” to make sure “failures occurred”. This is explained in full detail in Steven Jones paper:
        Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse …
        “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.


  23. Its kinda sad that you donate half the cash to AE911 truth btw. Why not donate it to family members of the people that were killed in the attack? The only thing Gage will do with you cash is book a trip to a far way country and speak to small groups off people who already dont believe the official story, so kinda useless don’t you think?

    • Jaytje… That’s SOOOO true what you wrote there.

      I wonder if Miss Mae knows about the “special website” that Gage had once “in the air” in order to support the victims. If I’m not mistaken he claimed that he would donate (some of) the money to these people but I believe it was discovered that this was nothin but a scam to earn more money for the A&E truth movement.

      Anyone who remembers the name of this website (I’ve forgotten its name), please let me know.

      Maybe that this will make her think twice before donating to A&E.

      Maybe she will even reconsider donating the money to the people who really deserve it.

  24. @Dalia,

    First you note this:
    “I was taught in my BSc Hons to never make assumptions.”

    And then you not this:
    “I’ve decided El Kammo that I think you must be either ”
    1. a disinformation agent or
    2. too scared to unlock from your world view.
    3. you haven’t looked at all the other evidence

    Now that’s a contradiction.
    But I understand that one’s mood can change during the day, so I will skip the contradiction and move to your decision about me:

    You diceded on me, without asking me anything, without giving me the chance to plead, and that’s not good justice, but I understand that one’s mood can change during the day, so forget obout the right to plead, I move on to the charges:

    1] Nope
    2] Nope
    3] On the countrary, I have spent many hours on studying the
    NIST theses( WTC7), more than you can imagine.

    I used to believe in A&E, but no more, so call me an outcast if you will:)

    • Outcast like these members you mean?


      “We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything; including the stuff that nobody was supposed to see.

      Our tendency to act as old fashioned journalists in exposing corruption eventually got us completely banned from the organization. Now, discussions about us are officially discouraged by the management of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as if we were the targets of a cult shunning.”

      This is also interesting.

      “The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

      The former employee of the Walnut Creek, Calif.-based architectural firm Akol & Yoshii is a full-time 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but Gage tries to maintain a façade of being a scientist asking scientific questions. He does his best to avoid the murkier political questions of who could have orchestrated a conspiracy theory and cover-up of the size and scope that the 9/11 conspiracy movement alleges, but his technical views are actually quite mainstream within the Truth movement.”


      • Thank you jaytje,

        Now A&E, who asked me to target WTC7 for their convenience, will become a target of my own, of Me, the outcast, the outlaw, the gunslinger, the El-Kammo

        • Therfore I might end like this: 🙂

          He lay face down in the desert sand
          Clutching his drawings in his hand
          Shot from behind, I thought he was dead
          But under his heart was an ounce of lead
          But a spark still burned so I used my knife
          And late that night I saved the life of El-Kammo

          (El-Kammo… El-Kammo . . .)

      • Gage quotes Danny Jowenko all wrong!, at his convenience, cherry picking!
        Danny was Dutch, and so am I, therfore I know the COMPLETE statement of Danny, I know ALL he said, based on what was shown to him (the wrong 6,5sec).
        Dalia wonders what Newton would think, I just know that our Danny would be pissed off about the abuse of his reaction by Gage.

        • Not to mention that Jowenko was sure about the normal collapse of WTC 1 and 2. So you can’t have it both ways. Either all buildings were blown up, or none were blown up.

    • @Dalia,

      End 2012 A&E made the call to all highrise builders in the world to take a good look at the drawings they got by a FOIA, regarding WTC7, “the smoking gun”, so I did, and not on the drawings only.
      I found nothing to discredit the NIST theses, but I did find the 6,5sec collapse not to be true. The famous CNN foutage takes 6,5sec but only records the last of 18,5sec.
      I have reported this to A&E, so Gage knows about this.
      He only removed the link on “rapid onset of collapse”, and did nothing else with it.
      So end of story for me with A&E.
      Now I am an outcast, an outlaw, a lone El-Kammo

    • El-Kammo,

      Your comment of September 8, 2014 at 8:21 am, is as useless as hearsay. You are an anonymous entity on the web making personal claims that cannot be verified. Why should anyone trust the words of someone who is either a fanatic or a paid stooge?

      No I am not anonymous, I have already once given my true identity here on this thread and will again, I am Willy Whitten, I am a retired cinematic special effects artist and sculptor. I am an autodidact researcher with expertise in many fields. I am especially adept at forensic history and the field of counter intelligence, using open source information.

      You are out of your league here with me bucko. You want to dance with me, you’d better put in a request for assistance from your supervisor.

      • You say: “Why should anyone trust the words of someone who is either a fanatic or a paid stooge?”

        I would like to ask you: why would anyone trust someone who claims to have expertise that he does not have (proven), claims to have done research that he did not do (proven).

        It’s not wise to believe someone just because he’s the one that yells the loudest.

        Here’s some information about one of the best known 9/11 critics: Richard Gage.
        All information in this link is proven. Read it carefully and then tell me: why do you believe him?


        • This is not about Richard Gage – or the thousands of scientists, pilots fireman, whistle-blowers.
          It is about having an investigation.
          The loudest has been the mainstream media – from a few hours after the collapse ’till today. Everybody went off to kill a million people in Iraq because the MSM was the loudest.

      • Cool,
        Are you the ‘supervisor’ I advised El-Kammo to seek assistance from? Or are you just another sock puppet run by Albury Smith?
        Either way you missed mention of my main point, which was and remains your/ their anonymity. All of you harassing this site are covert entities hiding in the shadows of this anonymity.

        You ask why I “believe” Gage. I do not “BELIEVE” anything, I AGREE with the findings Gage is promoting because they are in the main the same as my own findings. But most of all because I know the difference between a “collapse” and an explosion when I see one.

        The page you will find at the URL below is the result of my research:



        • I am no-ones supervisor.
          I am just someone who saw the buildings collapse. Like many people who have an interest in technology, and as someone who has seen a whole range of high tech demolitions the first thing I thought was: “wow, this looks like it’s been blown up”.
          It’s not strange to think so. I think most people did.

          But first impressions are not always right,
          Anyone who uses his ot hers common sense can imagine that when a big passenger plane flies into a building it will cause huge damage. I was in fact surprised the buildings did not collapse sooner.

          Unlike many people tell you, the Twin Towers were not built to survive a crash from an big plane that was flown into them on purpose. There’s a huge difference between a plane flying low, at low speed (no pilot will ever fly that low at full speed) and hit a building, while trying his best to avoid it and a plane at full speed which is flown into the buildings on purpose.
          The impact of a crash depends on mass and speed.

          Just common sense will tell anyone that the stories and conspiracies that a lot of people tell you are not only wrong, but are in fact ridiculous. There are so many stories told that just don’t make sense. Like melting steel coming from the building.
          By the time steel melts it is not even capable of supporting a deck of cards, let alone several stores of a huge building. It would have collapsed long before the steel could melt.
          All conspiracy stories are packed with that kind of so called “facts” that anyone can prove wrong by simply reading some real facts from anywhere on the internet.

          And as far as anonymous is concerned: I choose to keep a low profile on the internet. Because I am very much aware of how much information can be collected about someone.
          That’s my choice.
          Does that mean I am a sock puppet? Only in the minds of people who are unable to fight my statements with arguments I think.

          Does giving you my name and social security number and shoe size change anything in my argumentation?
          Yes, I happen to know El-Kammo. Does that make me his supervisor? No, he’s just someone who pointed this forum out to me. And since this seemed to be an opportunity to really discuss things about 9/11 with someone who actually reads comments and answers I chose to join.

        • “I think considering you a jackass is more to the point El-Kammo”
          O.K., now offence taken, just a question:
          What are Gage and his sisters going to do when a new investigation resists the use of explosions and/or nanoshit?
          Demand for a new newest more newest investigation?

        • “Demand for a new newest more newest investigation?” ~Kammo

          There will be no new investigation. The so-called “government” has “moved beyond 9/11” – other than using it as a perpetual excuse for “global constabulary duties” and instituting a Maximum Security State in the “Homeland”.

          We, the individual researchers are the New Investigation, and the case is solved beyond a reasonable doubt: 9/11 was a systemic PSYOP.

        • “So, when I am not anonymous I am right”~El-Kammo

          No, when you grasp the physics of the events at WTC 9/11 you are right.

          When you refrain from flooding a blog with bullshit, you are on the way to being right.

      • You might consider my posts as a service from a highly secret government/World New Order internet division, to test your theories for FREE !, before stating them as “evidence”, thus alowing you to test your old Loose Change stuff for FREE !!!, I could be a nice Chief of dpt., willing to service you.
        Please make no donations to us, you can make those to Richard Gage 🙂

        • 18.5 seconds for a building to fall that had no feasible reason to fall at all is hardly a long time. And that is if the calculation for what happened unseen inside has any validity itself.

          None of the three WTC high-rises should have collapsed due to fire. No other steel framed skyscrapers before or since have. That should give you a clue.

      • Once an explosive expert was asked to give his opinion based on images shown by a Dutch television station called NOVA.
        This was part of NOVA’s docu on the 1 mil challenge.
        Please phrase his comments as accuratily as you can, and may I hope better then Gage.
        Make your best effort.

  25. Well Dalia,

    I don’t see much sense in this going on much further. The flood of agitprop agents has destroyed any possibility of a coherent thread and reasonable dialog by crushing everything together into a chaotic blunderbuss blast of dissonance.

    Thank you for the important work you do,
    Yours truly, Willy Whitten

    Be well, and visit my blog at:

      • No offense to Dalia et al but I think El-Kammo has a point there.

        After all, the official reports were also published and everyone had the right to comment on those reports.

        You’re the ones who comment on these reports and you “believe” that these reports are a fraude (without reading them thouroughly as Dalia stated in an earlier comment).

        Stop calling people disinformation agents when you even haven’t read those reports properly. You make a fool out of yourselves… Don’t you get it ? You’re really believing what other people are telling you.

        Ok. I know that you’ll tell me that this goes for me too… And you’re right !

        BUT, I’ve read all of the reports (you didn’t !). So, don’ tell me that I’m comparing apples with pears (this might be a flemish expression but I hope you get the point).

        Of course, you have the right to disagree with the conclusions of the NIST report but how do you do that if

        1. You haven’t read the complete report ?
        2. You have no degree in structural engineering ?
        3. Am I wrong if I say that your conclusions are based upon “assumptions” that a 3rd party has made for you ?
        4. Were you to lazy to go through about 10.000 pages (which I did)
        5. Does it give you the right to write a book (for children for god’s sake) when you even don’t know what you’re talking about ???? This is a serious one… I have a 7 year old kid. With your books you would be trying to convince my child to believe your “offical story” (do you mind if I put it that way) ???

        Tell me if I’m wrong here but you don’t even have AN OFFICIAL STORY… No evidence whatsoever… If you would have had evidence, you should have gone to court… because withholding evidence is a crime too (or didn’t you know that ?).

        And THAT’s the only reason, in my opinion, why you’re still demanding for a new investigation….

        When will you understand the contradictory in your statements ?

        You say that you have undeniable evidence to proove that it was an inside job.

        That’s just marvellous !!! But what do you do with that ?

        Nothing !!! You require a new investigation whilst you have already all of the evidence to proof that 9/11 was an inside job….

        Why, oh why wouldn’t you go to court than ? With all that evidence ?

        Ow wait, I remember a phrase of Dalia… Courts are bought, right ? All over the world. Everyone who works in court has been bought… All over the world, right Dalia ?

        Tell me then : what’s the use of a new investigation ?

        You’re kidding yourself…

        P.S. : With all due respect Dalia, I’m sure that you’ve put a great effort in 9/11, so did I. I’m very well aware of the fact that it must be hard for you to read from some people that they don’t agree with you…
        Could it be that the people who were on the spot that day find it also disturbing all the things that you claim ?

        Honestly ?

        Do you disrepect the efforts of all the people who were involved during the rescue efforts ?

        Honestly ?

        • Maybe make an open disclosure of your credentials, then give me a solid explanation on my bone fragments post. Then we can discuss. But if part of the NIST report says that the explosion in the foyer were as a result of fireball 93 floors up. They are wrong as the lifts are partitioned and it came out of the freight elevator. I think which only went up 40 floors. So if thats bogus??? Yes I am thinking you might be being paid for commenting here. But there is also an effect called “backfire effect’ that once your belief system is locked in—evidence does not change the belief. I used to believe the official story – and wanted to believe it… and it took three months to overcome the emotional trauma of changing my paradigm.

  26. “And why would they blow up the floors?????????????????????
    Are you really that dense in believing that for some reason, they needed to blow up the floors???????????”~jaccohorst says – September 9, 2014 at 2:32 am

    How stupid you are Jacco, there wasn’t a single intact floor-pan found in the aftermath of WTC, and the concrete was all turned to gravel and dust. The floors were blown up as part of the demolition.

    How old are you? Did you even go to grade school?

  27. “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”

    PNAC, Section V of Rebuilding America’s Defenses (pg.51) -September 2000


  28. Anyone who understands the dynamics of a heat-sink should realize that there is no physical possibility of the structure of hundred million tons of steel in the towers below the floors struck by aircraft. could have been heated even beyond their normal ambient temperature.

    And anyone who has seen the massive box columns during the construction of these towers should have a good grasp on the scale of these core columns. The upper portion simply could not have fallen through this structure.

    It is a prima facie impossiblility.

      • What an absolute joker you are JohnyBoy – another gibberish-mongering blogger flogging nonsense. What in the world has your video got to do with the the image I posted. A few cables pulling some floors away. Yes – and then the building collapses as per gravity. Open your eyes (that are wide shut) and just look at the picture I posted. Meditate for a little while to get all the notions of conspiracies and myths out of your head – and then re look at the picture…. MASSIVE plume clouds are exploding out all around the building – huge slabs. tons and tons of stuff propelled away— 200 – 300 feet all around (in reality probably 400′) You building demo – as it should just collapses DOWNWARD. Bye.

        • What I was trying to show with that video, is that a rigid lower part of a building can be completely destroyed by a falling mass on top of it. Does not surprise me that you didnt get the hint…. But a man can hope…

        • “What I was trying to show with that video, is that a rigid lower part of a building can be completely destroyed by a falling mass on top of it.”~Johnnyboy

          And you don’t see how this is an epic fail on your part?
          The “rigid lower part” of your particular example is in no way comparable to hundreds of tons of steel box columns.

          You are a goofball pal.

      • JohnyBoy have you investigated this video collapse? It still collapses downward. It may have been pre-weakened. It may be not a traditional steel building design. Maybe check that out

      • Oh by the way. If people were inside your video collapsing building – they would have stayed crushed inside there. Not blasted into 1/16 inch smithereens and landed on the rooftops of distant buildings.

        • I think i read some where that the bonefragments belonged to a firefighter. So we can assume he was in the stairwell going up to evacuate People. So he was surrounded by the core columns, the gypsum walls, big parts of the floors, and the perimeter columns. According to not so smart guy, they blew up the entire floors around the stairwell. So the pressure wave was going in all directions. At the Same time they blew up the core columns and the perimeter columns. So we can conclude he was right in the center of explosions going off all around him. But for some reason there was still enough explosive power to blow this mans bonefragments a few 100 feet away. Even if he was hanging outside of the building, those explosions would not have blown him to pieces.

          But feel free to convince me with some calculations.

        • “I think i read some where that the bonefragments belonged to a firefighter.”~Johnnyboy

          I think I read somewhere that the moon was made of green cheese…. so what?

          You want to speak to an issue, give real citations. This assertion is as bad as just throwing that stupid video of the building being pulled giving no further info as to where, what, and when it was.

        • “So we can assume he was in the stairwell going up to evacuate People.”~Johnnyboy

          Oh can we? You might “assume” but you have no proof.

          Thanks for the citation. But now tell us who wait with baited breath; how was this firefighter blown to little tiny bits in a gravity collapse? And how did those little tiny bits get blown hundreds of feet beyond the footprint of the building?

        • New York was blanketed with dust from the collapsing buildings.

          But why would i explain it? You claim that it was done with explosives, So the burden of proof lies with you…..

          Good luck with that lol

        • “Great video!”~JoccoHorst

          Great in what way? It has zero relevance to the demolitions of the WTC complex. It is a mechanical pull of a concrete structure that has no steel core.

          And I will mention here that whatever the calculations are to blow a human body to bits is nothing compared to blowing a steel framed high-rise to smithereens.

          Whether you jokers are playing games on your own minds, or know better and are trying to pull one over on the readership is a question. But it matters not what the answer is, you shills are showing yourselves to be real idiots.

      • “Care to explain this Demolition then?”Johnnyboy’s video

        Sure, easy; that is a concrete building with no steel core. No comparison to the WTC Towers nor Bldg7.

        I will also point out that this weak series of comments follows my point about the massive heat sink of the millions of tons of steel in the cores of the towers. So we have yet again a diversion and straw-man approach of these shills’ argumentation.

        • Even if there was rebar in the concrete it has no relevance to the WTC construction.

          You have offered no citation as to what building this was that was pulled in the video, therefore your assertions of rebar in the construction is empty assertion.

  29. Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

    James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

    Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

    “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another.”

    Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, but in a proper way,” he said.



    • Hahahaha, do you actually know what he is saying????????? I guess you just read the title, which proves how dense you are lol!!!!

      “I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the collapse.
      An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.”


    • Its truly amazing, that you missed this part in the article you linked to………………………………

      “Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.””

      • Well. Thats how truthers “investigate”. Everything that dismisses their belief will be ignored. And this is a prime example.

      • I missed nothing Johnyboy and Jocco, the point remains regardless of Quintiere’s personal hypothesis, that his critique of NIST is sound; in that they did not explain the global collapse of the towers, which has been my point from the beginning.
        And I will reiterate here that this point is not merely academic; not only were the NIST 9/11 reports scientific fraud, they were legally in breach of contract for not fulfilling the mandate to explain the global collapses of the towers and why building 7 came down.

        And you jumping to conclusions and hooting like monkeys as if I missed that point – {which is on the very first page of the article}, is exactly the type of nonsense used to dismiss the real point. And that is a classic ‘straw man argument’; making a tempest in a thimble about a point that is not the point being made by your opponent.

        • Lol you still dont understand what hè is saying.

          According to him NIST used a lower fuel load then hè would have expected. According to him the fires were more intense then NIST claims. He does not have a problem with the collapse itself. Hè contributes the collapse to the sagging and pulling floor trusses.

        • “Lol you still dont understand what hè is saying.”~Johnnyboy

          No, you don’t understand what I am saying bucko. I am saying that his point about NIST not fulfilling it’s mandate is my point. It doesn’t matter what Quintiere’s personal take is beyond that.

          And beyond that the other evidences concerning proof of explosive demolitions overshadows these hypotheses of Quintiere.

          Your attempt to frame everything in the narrow confines of this single aspect is typical of the disingenuous sophistry of agitprop shills like you.

        • No. Thats also not what hè is saying about the mandate. Wow, I thought English was your first language? Dont you understand anything hè is saying?

        • “No. Thats also not what hè is saying about the mandate.” ~Johnnyboy

          Bullshit, if NIST had satisfactorily explained the global collapses of the towers then Quintiere would have no room for criticism.

          NIST did NOT fulfill it’s mandate to explain the complete global collapses of the World Trade Towers, and a lot of interested parties want to know why.

          “Poised for collapse initiation” is weasel talk. And your dismissing this point is ‘straw-man’ spurious argumentation.

        • You know Johnnyboy? Going round’n’round with you on your stupid carousel is getting old. You promote NIST as a legitimate scientific investigation – it is proven ten ways to Sunday that it is a political whitewash, and now you want to play pop goes the weasel over trivial aspects. It is an endless game of hopscotch with jokers like you.

          I already showed that it has been proven that there was no evidence that the ‘initiation’ NIST asserts is proven. So their “poised for collapse” is bullshit. Quintiere thinks it is bullshit too.
          But Quintiere isn’t considering the evidence of controlled demolition beyond his ideas for hotter fires to initiate. So he is behind the curve on the information trend line.

          It has been 13 bloody bloody years now – and squabbling with jerks like yourself is worse than tiresome. This PSYOP on 9/11 was used as a pretext for a fraudulent war of aggression against a bogeyman “war on terrorism”.

          You are an accomplice after the fact for being involved in this criminal propaganda campaign. “I was just following orders” is not a valid defense. Remember that.

        • I can’t wait for a new investigation. But what if the results are the Same? I know for my self that if it actually turns out to be an inside job, I will write a long apology letter. Would you do the same?

      • “After 13 bloody years you still keep asking for a new investigation. So nothing has been proven at all.”~Jonnyboy

        I am afraid you are wrong hotshot. You will not find me asking for a new investigation. The system is corrupt to the core, any new “investigation” would be another bullshit modified limited hangout.
        Anyone who believes that the perps investigating themselves are going to reveal any sort of truth is living in Wonderland.

        The world wide investigation by individual researchers has indeed busted the 9/11 case and proven it is a systemic psychological operation – one that in fact continues to this day, with teams of agitprop agents flooding the blogosphere with bullshit distraction and disinformation.

        And YOU Johnnyboy are an obvious part of that disinfo campaign whether you are a paid agent or a useful idiot dupe.

        Now, at some point in the future when the current paradigm collapses there may be a chance for the history of these events to be cleared up. Until then, those of us who have thoroughly researched this topic in a forthright and honest manner know that it is a “inside job”.

        • Ah, so you don’t want a new investigation. So what is all that junk and bunk on your website then? Your own investigation? Well good luck with that 😀

          I really loved this part 😀

          “The world wide investigation by individual researchers has indeed busted the 9/11 case and proven it is a systemic psychological operation”

          Yeh, lets see what kind of research was done. We have people claiming it was Nukes, Energy weapons, Normal explosives, thermite, thermate, Nano Thermite, Bush did it, the Jews did it, the NWO did it, Rockerfellers did it, in fact everyone has done it, except the actual terrorist. Thats the problem with truthers, that they don’t come up with ONE plausible scenario. No, it has to be dozens of different scenarios, which all amounts to nothing. So gather a few truther friends, and try to come up with one scenario will ya!

          “I am afraid you are wrong hotshot. You will not find me asking for a new investigation. The system is corrupt to the core, any new “investigation” would be another bullshit modified limited hangout.”

          Yeh, because every engineer in the world, besides the locos from AE911, is in on the conspiracy. So go and find a group of real engineers, and do a new investigation. Its not like AE911 will ever do that. They will be just calling for one till the end of days.

          You are so paranoid, that I wonder if you ever go outside into the real world?

        • I have noticed how juvenile characters such as yourself are so fond of smiley faces attending the jejune bullshit they write.

        • “Yeh, why bother commenting on what i said, but focus instead on the smileys”~JohnnyBoy

          Because everything you said and say is absolutely trivial.

          I am being over generous in responding to you at all. And my patience is about burnt out on your blather.

  30. For simplicity let us just put forward these two short items, directly from NIST itself:

    >“Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)”

    >“… although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    It is clear to any sane individual that NIST did not fulfill Objective 1.

    Any claims that this was a full and complete scientific investigation are utterly without merit.
    To the contrary, NIST produced a pseudo-scientific fraud of criminal proportions, and those who propagate this fraud are complicit in this criminal enterprise.


    • Yes they did. Just think of an air crash investigation. Lets assume for arguments sake that during a flight one of the doors flew out the plane causing decompression and sending the plane into a big fireball into the ground. What do you think the investigators will look at? How the plane crashed into the ground or what caused the plane to crash into the ground? They are only interested in finding out why the plane crashed, not how it crashed into the ground. Its the same with the NIST report. They investigated why the building collapsed, and not how it finally came to rest in a big pile of steel. That’s not science, but pure bunk what you are talking about. Maybe you should ask a real researcher how they go about their business. Like I explained before, there are to many variables going on in a chaotic collapse, which is impossible to calculate. Think of a football player trying to score the same goal over and over again. That’s impossible, because of the variables.

      • “They investigated why the building collapsed, and not how it finally came to rest in a big pile of steel.”~JohnnyBoy

        What utter rhetorical bunk, “how it finally came to rest in a big pile of steel” is the explanation as to why and how the building collapsed, which is the mandate.

        >“Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)”


        • “To bad you don’t understand anything about research. I might as well talk to a monkey.”JohnnyBoy

          You certainly know monkey language.

          I noticed the change in your aka caps for first and last names now…
          Are you getting around being blocked here by using different gravitars and IPs?
          That would be solid proof you are from Spook Central.

    • Could you paste the correct quote next time, and not the one from the draft?

      “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 does not change the context in anyway whatsoever to just quote the final definitive sentence for the sake of brevity.

        Anyway Johnnyboy, the purpose of countering propaganda is not to convince the propagandist and change his mind, it is to lay bare the techniques and agenda of such propaganda to a candid world.

    • Don’t you need to be an engineer or architect to join AE911? or do they take on everyone thats stupid enough to believe everything Gage says?

      • There are auxiliary memberships available, like many organizations. I was a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth for some time. I am not a pilot. But your credentials place you in a sub category.

        Sorta like your sub category position at spook central. You are not a real, trained intelligence agent, just some jerk who wants to work in the agitprop blog field – like the sweatshop telemarketers of the 80s and 90s. You are a low level shill and hack that thinks it is impressive to flood blogs with garbage like you do.

        So the obvious turn around question is:

        Don’t you need to be a spook or military to join PSYOPS? or do they take on everyone that’s stupid enough to believe everything Authority says?

        • “There are auxiliary memberships available, like many organizations”
          Same with us, one has to start as a Jr.debunker or volunteer.

    • As an original member, yep, they even check credentials…and, JohnnyBoy, you’d be lucky to be as stupid as everyone who is with Mr. Gage … instead of being as stupid as your are now..
      BTW .. if you accept the official story and the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 in 11 seconds … without pre-set explosives and thermite, I have a friend who would like to show you a bridge you can buy very reasonably.

  31. I have had enough of the chit chat with the spooky agitprop kids.
    So I will end my participation here with this observation:

    Anyone who can look at the picture of the World Trade tower blowing up in the second to last illustration in the main article here, and seriously claim that it is not literally erupting, is an idiot.

  32. Sorry… Same “scientist, different story 🙂

    Here is the correct link to his experiment in which he proofs that buildings can not collapse because of regular fires.

    I know this guy from a dutch website. Although the title of his video is called “9/11 Parody”, in his opinion it’s not a parody at all 🙂 He ‘s dead serious about 9/11 and he is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job… Just like you.

    Good luck with your “research for truth”…

    I would like to conclude with the very wise words of Mr. Niels Harrit ( you know, Mr. Nanothermite).

    The burden of proof is not yours… Just start a website, ask lots of questions AND don’t search for the answers…

    That’s the way how (dishonest) people can make a living nowadays.

    Good luck with that… I’m glad that my eyes were opened before I became a nutcase like most of the truthers…. I’m sure that all of you must live your lifes in fear.

    You know, it shouldn’t have to be that way… If only you would take the time to READ the official reports, you’ll see for yourself that those reports are based on reliable data.

    But the sad thing is that this can only be understood by people who have read the official reports… And you’re not one of those people who have read the reports (as you confirmed in this or another thread).

    I guess you must feel very comfortable in calling other people disinformation agents whilst you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

    Aren’t you a little embarassed from time to time when you call other people desinformation agents (knowing that your discussion partners have read more about 9/11 than you have) ?

    Face it : all you do is claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, that those buildings were deliberately destroyed and so on… But you have no proof whatsoever for your claims 🙁

    When you come to think of it… It’s kind of a sad story that you’re trying to sell.

    I sincerely hope that, one day, you’ll find the truth that you’re looking for.

    • Yes Xingfu. your illogicality exposes you. And your stupidity in the linking the above parody video clip to serious research further demonstrates that. You are not interested in the truth or the evidence. But focused on the BS. The sooner you move away to other frivolous sites the better.

  33. I am not a Truther because personally I find it difficult to comprehend how this could be an inside job as it would require the complicity of a multitude of people which would be almost impossible to keep secret. However, when viewing the above comments I am struck by the overarching vigour with which the detractors attack, it kind of makes me believe that perhaps, perhaps, they are shills and are employed to discredit and sow doubt. The enthusiasm they display is a little extreme. Their fanaticism is much like that of atheists that attack religion sites. So, to the detractors, perhaps you should learn a little tact and ease up on your unsolicited zealousness lest your true identity be discovered.

    • Good comment. Yes certain people are getting desperate to suppress any discussion of an investigation. Even PM Cameron in the UK is trying to suppress this. And – As for the number of people who ‘need to know’ in the big scheme of things it is apparently not that many. But Look up Susan Lindauer as a start. As a CIA asset she was dealing with the Iraqi’s and did have foreknowledge of the attack from her boss – and she was charged with the Patriot act when she started whistleblowing later. Many videos of her now. And there are many others who have spoken out. But the mainstream media control the lie. Also watch some of Darren Brown (a UK entertainer) his programs show how easy it is to control people’s mind.

    • Very good observation fromadistance, I never use to believe the idea that there were people commenting on articles and videos solely to keep a lid on something or to sway public opinion but now I know differently. Infowars.com, for instance, uses disqus to moderate and track the comments on the articles and the “up votes” an individual receives. When you look at the profiles of some of these shills, like this one https://disqus.com/home/user/davedfs
      you get a better understanding of what these people are doing. Just about every comment they make is an attack on someone. Then look at their quantity of both their comments and “upvotes”, this person has made 328 comments and received 899 upvotes. These numbers make it look like the person is a genious with a knack of making comments that are extremely well liked when what we are actually seeing is groups of people working together. When one of them makes a comment the others automatically up-vote it making it appear to everyone else that the commentors opinions are readily shared.

      • Yes absolutely right Steve. I have noticed even on this site—a ‘collective’ seeming working in unison to clutter and diffuse.
        As i have said in some past comments. it is like they are working from a handbook, playing their cards one at a time… with all the answers… and after 3 months revealing they have a blog that has investigated that… a blog by the way that would require months of effort. But they never fronted that in the first place.
        There are several kinds of disinfo people… paid/ unpaid/groups
        And then there’s…. the boasters
        I happened to come across penn and tellers video yesterday (again) – and was reminded how appalling it was. They trash truthers—supply no evidence of the official theory — then find the cookiest truthers they could and made them look stupid. And abuse them. The magicians were conned by the big 3 magic tricks (building 7) being the most obvious. What an appalling con on the people that those two perpetrate.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion