Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 11, 2021

Some Thoughts On 9/11

Twenty years ago I was chief technology officer for a major news website. It was after lunch and I was testing new productivity tools for the news room. Someone came into my office and said that a plane had hit the WTC in New York City. I walked into the news room where several TV screens were filled with pictures of a smoking tower. 

The news folks were busy writing their first takes. Some of it was speculation. I mentioned that this was not the first plane to hit a skyscraper in NYC and called it an accident. That made it into one of the first take stories.

Still - even as an accident it was spectacular news and the page views per minute on the website went towards our capacity limits. Then the second plane hit and it was immediately clear to everyone that these were no accidents. The web traffic went through the roof.

We had had ample capacity to cover news peaks but this was way too much traffic for our normal site to handle. I told the server administrator to take down all side processes on the web-server machines we were using. We then started to minimize the content of the site. Everything that was generated dynamically was switched off. We minimized the numbers of pictures. We stopped all advertisement delivery. Other major news sites I tested were already dead - overwhelmed from the enormous amount of traffic. We were still up - but even loading the much cleaned up front page took more than 30 seconds.

I phoned up a number of IT guys I knew who administered public web sites for other purposes. I asked them to mirror our site through a side channel we had opened for that purpose. We then fiddled with the domain name servers to reroute a part of our traffic to those mirror sites. With those finally up and running we barely made it through the evening traffic peak without crashing everything. 

The traffic stayed above our nominal capacity for over a week. I stopped my news room productivity project and set down to design a new content delivery system which allowed for a dynamic addition of capacity. The design was quite expensive but three month later we implemented it.

9/11 touched a bit on my job but I was lucky to avoid its other deadly consequences.

Before working for that news site I had long worked with Americans on a daily basis. I had been to the U.S. over a dozen times during the previous years. It was immediately clear to me that its people would want revenge. They would not care much against whom it would be waged. That private prediction turned out to be right.

Little has changed since. The catharsis that 9/11 should have brought never happened. Most people still don't care about the wars of terror and who gets killed in them. I blame the media for that.

Today the New York Times and the Washington Post both report on the recent 'righteous' drone strike in Kabul:

Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb
U.S. officials said a Reaper drone followed a car for hours and then fired based on evidence it was carrying explosives. But in-depth video analysis and interviews at the site cast doubt on that account.
Examining a ‘righteous’ strike
Expert analysis of deadly U.S. drone strike’s aftermath in Kabul suggests no evidence of explosives in targeted vehicle

Ten innocent persons, including 7 children, were killed in that strike.

I applaud those reports. But there have been some 15,000 other drone strike since 2007. Most of those have hit innocent people but there was little reporting about them.

Three days before the drone strike happened a much bigger massacre took place.

A suicide bomber hit at the gate of Kabul airport. The bomb killed several dozen people including U.S. soldiers. But what happened immediately after the bomb went off made the incident much deadlier. Those who guarded the airport opened fire on the large crowd that had hoped to be let in to catch a flight to somewhere. In total more than 170 people died, some of them were British citizens, others were Taliban guards, most were Afghan civilians.

Local Afghan news, a BBC report on Twitter, Russian public TV (at about 3 min, German translation), China's major news agency and other reporters all spoke to eye witnesses who all confirmed the story: "Most of those dead were killed by bullets."

But 'western' media have buried that story. The sole mention of it I could find is deep down in a long NYT report about the evacuations from Kabul:

For the first time, Pentagon officials publicly acknowledged the possibility that some people killed outside the airport on Thursday might have been shot by American service members after the suicide bombing.

Investigators are looking into whether the gunfire came from Americans at the gate, or from the Islamic State.

'Officials publicly acknowledged the possibility ...'  Do they call THAT 'reporting'?

There were quite obviously no ISIS shooters at the gate.

Why ain't U.S. media all over a story during which the U.S. side killed more than 100 innocent people? Is it hyping the drone attack, which killed 10, to cover for the more embarrassing act during which troops under U.S. control massacred many more than that? Because those troops were the CIA's Afghan death squads who may soon be your neighbors?

Before 9/11 U.S. intelligence knew of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and of plans for new attacks. Then came 9/11. I am by now one of those who thinks that they let it happen on purpose. That is because all the wars that followed had long been prepared for.

Following 9/11 the U.S. wars of terror displaced 37 million people and killed at least a million foreigners. The U.S. wars of terror are still going on today in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere.

Shouldn't 20 years be long enough to end those wars? To find some closure? To suppress the urge for revenge? To change the rather aggressive general U.S. mentality?

Unfortunately the answer to all those questions seems to be "No".

Posted by b on September 11, 2021 at 17:52 UTC | Permalink

« previous page | next page »

Peter Hitchens talks about the differences with his brother, Christopher (and the Troskyist left), over 9/11 and the regime change wars that ensued:

Peter Hitchens: why I disagreed with Christopher about 9/11

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 12 2021 13:17 utc | 201

Gordog 53

Hi G. You left out of your detailed analysis the evidence suggesting that there were homing devices installed in the towers, leading in the planes - whichever they were, remotely flown as they probably were.

I suppose you know of the evidence that the original civil airliners were switched in the radar shadows to which they first flew, replaced by specially prepared aircraft on crossing tracks, as their radar blips merged briefly on ATC screens. Who knows what fancy gear was on-board the replacements, to ensure they hit just the right floors - as they did - to do an excellent destruction job on the kompromat stored there.

Re. Hoarsewhisperer: Another commenter here gone straight down the refuse chute into the dumpster! LOL. Wikideceivia as a credible source on 11/9? Or on anything at all? Really? Listen H, about these super-profitable bridge shares I'm selling... As I said LOL!

Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Sep 12 2021 13:20 utc | 202

Posted by: Stonebird | Sep 12 2021 7:56 utc | 166

I didn't want to on too long about Saudi, though I could have done. Very few people really understand how the system works, and certainly not those in power in Washington.

Jihadism is basically private-enterprise warfare, which began because there was an excess of rather millennarian-inspired volunteers in the time of the Caliphate who were ready to go to war against Byzantium for free, and were only compensated by the booty they captured. Politicians thought this was great, an army who didn't have to paid. But the tradition also developed early of sponsorship by wealthy individuals, in the ninth century. The Caliph's mother for example paid for a house in Tarsus to maintain fighters against Byzantium. The Saudi model today is nearly identical; Ibn Saud recruited Wahhabi jihadis for his political uses.

Most oil states have an economic model where nearly all the country's GDP goes directly to the state. Saudi being a family-based monarchy, that means the king, but he is obliged to disburse a lot to keep everyone happy. The 5000 princes get first whack, but a lot are nut-jobs, and there's a lot of wahhabi propagandizing. The Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, I've heard him speak from the pulpit in support of Islamic State only ten or so years ago. That kind of thing is influential. This means the finance for IS is not formally speaking the Saudi state, not MbS, but in effect it's the same thing, and I doubt that it has stopped.

Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 12 2021 13:52 utc | 203

ADKC @Sep12 13:17 @201

That's an excellent interview but both the interviewer and Peter Hitchens pretend that policy-makers actually respond to intellectual debate.

Isn't it obvious by now that police is made at the top and forced on everyone else? That 'debate', like the pretense of democratic governance, is used to shoehorn a reluctant public to accept what the power-elite have already decided?

In other words, EMPIRE, as Karl Rove said, makes it's own reality. And those who run the Empire get to decide what that reality will be. I suspect that the madness doesn't end until we recognize this.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 13:52 utc | 204

Remotely controlling a full-size aircraft would have been easily possible 20 years ago. The General Atomics MQ1 Predator UAV has been in service since 1995, and first saw action in Bosnia during that mid-1990s conflict.
Posted by: Gordog | Sep 11 2021 21:38 utc | 65

There was an article in one of the aviation technical journals written by a former test pilot. From memory, I think it was a former Boeing test pilot. He stated as personally attested fact that in 2001 EVERY US commercial passenger aircraft made by Boeing had remote aircraft control fully installed and ready to use. There was even a US regulation that required it to be installed on every US commercial passenger aircraft. He also stated from his direct personal knowledge technical details of the remote control system, including information on how it is wired and what systems it by-passes. He said it can be activated remotely at any moment on any US passenger aircraft flying anywhere in the world, and the pilot would have no knowledge whatsoever of the fact that it had been activated. Remote control of the aerodynamic surfaces was total, the pilot was totally overridden and had no capability to override the remote. Supposedly the system was intended to take control if a plane was hijacked.

The article also stated that - prior to 2001 - some European airlines preferred Airbus because Airbus did not have that remote control system installed, and they had serious reservations about the capacity of a US agency to take remote control of their aircraft without warning and without oversight.

If I remember correctly, the article was written not so much in the context of 9/11 as in the aftermath of an aircraft incident around 2014 or 2015 - one of several in that period* - when the pilot seemed to have deliberately taken a passenger aircraft into a nosedive for a suicidal crash. In the aftermath of the incident in question, speculation had arisen as to whether someone (eg a passenger) could have hacked into the airraft controls - a hacker had also seperately proved that a passenger could hack into an aircraft's control system through the onboard wifi and move aerodynamic surfaces remotely. The article was specifically addressing those concerns, and also specifically stated that the capability was fully installed on all Boeing passenger aircraft at the time of 9/11.

So according to that source the capability of a US agency to remotely takeover control and fly the aircraft was fully installed on every Boeing passenger aircraft in the world [but probably excluding older airframes] at the time of 9/11. Every aircraft involved on 9/11 was a Boeing.

* From memory, the incident concerned may well have been a Germanwings crash in which the aircraft crashed unaccountably into a mountain, but it might have been another incident. The pilot was officially accused of intentional crash-suicide. There were an uncanny number of such incidents around 2014-2015; most involved Boeing aircraft, but at least one involved an Airbus.

Posted by: BM | Sep 12 2021 14:06 utc | 205

I don't know what kind of physics you used
Posted by: Gordog | Sep 12 2021 0:26 utc | 101

'Troll' Physics?

Troll physics can achieve any result sesired, on demand. It is based on the Hermann Goering formula.

Posted by: BM | Sep 12 2021 14:13 utc | 206

As for the flight path, some have speculated that a beacon was installed in one of the towers during the Gelatin art project, where Israeli artists had access to WTC 1 91st floor, where they removed a window and installed a platform, like a tiny sundeck. The installation was filmed from a helicopter and an article about this was published in the NY Times on August 8 2001. Here's one of many articles about the Israeli art project at WTC 1.
Posted by: jonku | Sep 12 2021 0:34 utc | 102

There's also the "dancing Israelis" who were on the rooftop of a nearby building, and could have directed a laser pointer at one of the buildings to guide the aircraft.

Posted by: BM | Sep 12 2021 14:23 utc | 207

So many anomalies so little time. Regardless of how the buildings fell etc., #7 as prime evidence of shenanigans, doesn't the FACT that no passenger airliner hit the Pentagon blow the whole thing up? And it also throws spanners in the works because then one does have to deal with issues like Where in the World is Barbara Olson?

Posted by: gottlieb | Sep 12 2021 14:25 utc | 208

I reccomend the video by former NIST employee Peter Ketcham over at ae911truth. Wont risk the thread by linking it but easily found. Would like to hear your thoughts if you do watch it. Cheers
Posted by: Rhyem | Sep 12 2021 7:22 utc | 160

Hi Rhyem,

After some initial interest in Richard Gage's 1000+ members, I became disenchanted after going through the list member-by-member and discovering that there were hardly any Qualified, registered, currently-practising graduates in Architecture and/or Structural Engineering on his list. That was 10 years ago. I doubt there's been a scramble of Architects & Engineers queueing up to join because they're pissed off with NIST's conclusions, because they're not.
If they were pissed off with NIST they could, and would, tell NIST to fix it via the weight and authority of their professional associations and institutes.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12 2021 14:34 utc | 209

Re. Hoarsewhisperer: Another commenter here gone straight down the refuse chute into the dumpster! LOL. Wikideceivia as a credible source on 11/9? Or on anything at all? Really? Listen H, about these super-profitable bridge shares I'm selling... As I said LOL!
Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Sep 12 2021 13:20 utc | 202

The Wikipedia pages on WTC Collapse were produced by people who knew what they were talking about and echo NIST's explanations which, unlike some 'experts' here, I've read AND understood. Jealous?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12 2021 14:56 utc | 210

YesXorNo @Sep12 12:05 #195

Finally! Confirmation of what I've been saying since learning that 28 Taliban were among the dead.

I even mentioned my speculation of a firefight earlier in the thread @Sep11 21:26 #62.

= = =

Scott Ritter (in the video segment linked to by YesXorNo):

  • Marines don't panic - they are well trained and expected a bombing

    I take this with a grain of salt because so many were killed - there may have been some panic after the Marines thought they were receiving fire from an armed group in the crowd - they were expecting a bombing not an assault;

  • 28 Taliban were in the crowd

    Note: there may have been more; AFAIK 28 were killed

    I've speculated that some or all actually rushed in after the bombing;

  • Taliban were (likely) shooting in the air to disperse the crowd (a standard tactic)

    This is more reasonable than what I initially thought: that Taliban had returned fire from panicked US soldiers;

  • "Some of the Marines who are being treated were shot"

    AFAIK this has not been reported - it has been covered up.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 15:11 utc | 211

Not in Our Name (NION) was a United States organization founded on March 23, 2002 to protest the U.S. government's course in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks; it disbanded on March 31, 2008. Its membership included relatives of 9/11 casualties and others..

"Pledge of Resistance"
The Pledge is written by Starhawk and Saul Williams, in the style of free verse, beginning:
We believe that as people living
in the United States it is our
responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government,
in our names
Not in our name
will you wage endless war . . .wiki

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 12 2021 15:23 utc | 212

@BM | Sep 12 2021 14:23 utc | 207

There's also the "dancing Israelis" who were on the rooftop of a nearby building, and could have directed a laser pointer at one of the buildings to guide the aircraft.

They were the only ones to get arrested that day. They had a company called "Urban Moving Systems", here is an image of their van.

Quite a coincidence? How come they were released?

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 12 2021 15:23 utc | 213

@gottlieb | Sep 12 2021 14:25 utc | 208

So many anomalies so little time. Regardless of how the buildings fell etc., #7 as prime evidence of shenanigans, doesn't the FACT that no passenger airliner hit the Pentagon blow the whole thing up?
Sure, but who cares about facts? Standard procedure is to simply call somebody a "conspiracy theorist" or claim a hypothesis to be "crazy", without any logic or evidence to support the claim. Then pretend the case is closed.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 12 2021 15:28 utc | 214

Norwegian @ 179

Many controlled demolitions have been performed around the world, but none of them turn steel structures to dust creating pyroclastic flows

Yeah, maybe your pyroclastic should be replaced with a word that hasn't been invented yet, 'cause your none is unique and absolute.

But it makes no difference that we've all witnessed this phenomenon a million times, even in high definition...

...20 years on and we've learned nothing.

Posted by: john | Sep 12 2021 15:29 utc | 215

@john | Sep 12 2021 15:29 utc | 215

Yeah, maybe your pyroclastic should be replaced with a word that hasn't been invented yet, 'cause your none is unique and absolute.

It's not mine: Pyroclastic Flows

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 12 2021 15:42 utc | 216

I never bothered to look deeply into the 911 theories but I used two techniques I find useful.
1. Prioritize general intent. It is for me beyond doubt that once the event happened an awful lot of people saw it as a golden opportunity for very aggressive foreign interventionism. There was a thorough awareness of how this could be used to get support and achieve ambitious aims abroad. It is secondary to find out whether some people went so far to deliberately facilitate the 911 event to happen. One does not really need to know it in order to understand the follouwup events. It's got nothing to do with 'the CIA is too decent do do stuff like that'.
2. I did try to imagine alternative explanations and there are a lot of variants between 'we entirely did not see that coming' and 'we were in full control of the situation and made sure it went ahead as planned'. Often conclusions are based on lack of imagination in considering other possibilities. It may seem odd to accuse conspiracy theories of lack of imagination but it is entirely the case.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 12 2021 16:33 utc | 217


You seem to make a lot of broad-brush statements (disparaging) but you avoid commenting on specifics. I would like to know your esteemed building collapse theory for WTC7. I suggest re-reading Gordog136 and S184, including the papers referenced therein, prior to drafting your detailed response.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 12 2021 17:18 utc | 218

Norwegian @Sep12 15:23 #213



Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 17:40 utc | 219

Again, I say it is immaterial how and what exactly happened on 9/11. What is crucial is that the US military and Secretary of Defense were not held to account. If the government actually believed the official story, why would the Acting Chief of Staff, who was also in charge of the US Air Force, be promoted to the position permanently?

Posted by: Albertde | Sep 12 2021 17:45 utc | 220

@ James c | Sep 11 2021 18:41 utc | 15... please do read @ Gordog | Sep 11 2021 18:59 utc | 25, as it was really addressed directly to you....

thank you gordog.. i am inclined to agree with BM in his comments later in the thread... you can read those too if you are still paying attention...

Posted by: james | Sep 12 2021 18:03 utc | 221

@Tuyzentfloot they used this to justify something they wanted to do anyway. either way they are mass murdering psychopaths, nobody realistic denies that. they didn't have to use nanothermite and Hollywood Mission Impossible style intricately coordinated
explosions and remote controlled planes to achieve the result they wanted, and it would be very difficult to pull all that off, didn't need a Lost tv show refuge to stow the passengers of a plane that didn't crash in Pennsylvania, all they had to do is lie a lot about who did it and why, and why the us government wasn't negligent at best. the government that so badly screwed up the long foreseen withdrawal from Afghanistan is not capable of pulling off something like the various scenarios I've seen described in this comment thread. The CIA never managed to pull off it's proposal to kill Castro via exploding cigar, what makes anybody think they could pull off and hide a controlled demolition, and why would they need to? The U.S. just invents a reason for war when it wants a war, it doesn't need to bother elaborately rigging one, nor is it capable.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 12 2021 18:04 utc | 222

@ Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 17:40 utc | 219... had you not heard about that story?? maybe you are saying wow to the picture on the side of the van... cheers james.

Posted by: james | Sep 12 2021 18:05 utc | 223

There is a great piece about the Dancing Israelis at the Grayzone. It concludes , maybe not definitively but quite reasonably that they had nothing to do with the whole event. Heard a bang, went to take a look.

Good journalism disappoints.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 12 2021 18:45 utc | 224

Walter @199--

Great to read you again. Hope the Dixie fire didn't get too close to ya. Friends in Chester got very lucky when the firs split and avoided their town, but they did evacuate. I'm sure I'll enjoy Fidel's essay. Hope you and your missus are doing well. My best to you both!

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 12 2021 19:06 utc | 225

Gordog says in 136 that the towers' collapse in the way observed would require "simultaneous" cutting of the building's central core. I would like to add, and thereby hopefully clarify, that what he (probably) means is not a cutting like it is applied when felling trees, which then tip over, but rather an instantaneous and complete removal of the WHOLE central core; as if it'd have just been evaporated in a flash.

Could this have happened? In short: yes.

There is a rather sophisticated theory out there, which examines the idea of a nuclear device bursting not in a classic explosion, but rather as a conflagration. Such a device would be of comparatively simple design, built from a uranium load, and detonated some 30m (100ft) below the building's basements, in the granite rockbed of Manhattan.

The evidence for this mechanism is substantial. I'll give a few highlights:

- molten granite in the rock bed below the towers, the so-called melting pot [pic]

- pools of flowing Hudson water over all three footprints today, which is a good neutron absorber

- skyward illumination at night right at the frequency of Cherenkov radiation, the light blue charateristic of nuclear decay

You can learn more about the theory by searching (not google, maybe] for Heinz Pommer, a german physicist associated with it. - Sorry if it is a double mention by now, but I skipped forward after 136 to chime in anyway.

Posted by: persiflo | Sep 12 2021 19:28 utc | 226

james @Sep12 18:05 #223

Yeah, I heard about the "dancing shlomo's". I think one or more were even acknowledged as Mossad agents/operatives.

I was saying "wow" about the van. But now that I think of it, I think I may have seen a picture of the van many years. I just forgot about it.

Here's a video about them.

@4:24 you can see the text (official report?) describing the Israeli group and statements they made. In that text it says that the group were seen to be celebrating 16 minutes after the first plane hit - when everyone thought that the attack was merely an accident. They also explained that Israel would benefit from this terrorism on American soil - which they were there to document. How did they know to document a terrorist attack on WTC on that day?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 19:29 utc | 227

Posted by: MagdaTam | Sep 12 2021 10:41 utc | 191

Who wrote: 'It appears that like the opponents, strategic perception and development is not your forte'

You are are welcome to your opinion. I don't conflate '[we] the people' with some 'Papa Czar' figure.

I also welcome consciousness raising, even incremental. The Viet Nam war was won in the streets of America, not the battlefield. I'm hoping for a repeat performance this time around, although it may be driven more by events than knowledge and consciousness.

I am acutely aware of the coercive nature of governments, unfortunately.

Posted by: Paul | Sep 12 2021 19:36 utc | 228

@pretzelattack I don't understand everything in your argument but I generally agree that many theories make things overly complicated as if people lost sight of the goal. I imagine a CIA chief discussing options and doing risk assessment: "Look, why get your hands dirty , get more people involved, leave traces, when you have volunteers who are willing to fly planes into buildings all by themselves? To make it more sexy?" It's a hard sell.
If the CIA chief is even more risk averse he(or she)will say "I don't even want to hear it if there is something pending. We'll take whatever gift we get and make something out of it."

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 12 2021 19:37 utc | 229

Thanks to Norwegian for chipping in as a structural engineer. Also Retiredmecheng, a mechanical engineer with professional background in thermodynamics.

I have commented here on two areas in which I am professionally qualified: the flying of the airplanes and the thermodynamics of heat transfer.

The former has been covered by many other pilots and there is broad agreement among those who have tried flying these profiles in full-flight sims.

The latter issue of heat transfer into the steel structure has hardly been addressed at all, anywhere, but is extremely important. I have already mentioned that there has been ZERO mathematical analysis of heat transfer from the fires to the steel structure in the NIST reports.

This is astonishing. The fact is that heat transfer is a very specialized field in engineering. There are very few actual practitioners, and those kinds of experts usually work in designing heat exchange systems for things like nuclear and conventional-fuel power plants, as well as engines of various kinds, fuel cells and things like that.

It is a fascinating science that I got involved in due to my academic background in thermodynamics. I have had the great opportunity to be invited to work on a number of interesting projects over the years, mostly due to relationships with industry people that I have known professionally.

Several such projects involved a particular type of heat transfer application used in gas turbine engines---which is to transfer heat energy from the otherwise wasted exhaust stream, and into the incoming air stream exiting the compressor and entering the combustor. In that way, the air is heated up significantly, so less fuel need be burned to achieve the same combustion temp.

This is called the recuperation cycle and is used successfully on gas turbine engines today, including the engines on the newest class of Type 45 destroyers of the Royal Navy. It is also used in other stationary gas turbines used for power generation and such. But it has not yet been successfully adapted to aircraft engines, due to size and weight issues with the heat exchanger, aka recuperator.

The key to the efficient use of a single prime mover is the choice of a gas turbine that provides efficiency over a large load range; the WR-21 gas turbine incorporates compressor intercooling and exhaust heat recovery, making it significantly more efficient than previous marine gas turbines...

A more prosaic application of a heat exchanger is a car radiator, or turbocharger intercooler. Here a flow of cooling air flowing past the hot fins of the exchanger carries away excess heat. Every air conditioner and refrigerator also relies on heat exchangers to function. Here they are called condensers and evaporators, but they are conceptually the same as a radiator.

I wasn't involved in the WR21 turbine engine, but the bottom line is that I know this science well, and it is extremely critical to the issue of just how much ANY of the structural steel in those WTC buildings could possibly have been heated up.

The NIST, as I have noted did not even spare a single sentence on the issue of heat transfer, much less a mathematical heat transfer analysis.

Naturally, that leaves open a HUGE scientific question: just how did the heat go from that fire and INTO those thick steel beams?

We are left to assume this just sort of 'happens' spontaneously and without any kind of physics?

No! Heat transfer does not work that way. There are very specific PHYSICAL mechanisms by which heat is transferred from one object or fluid to another. I attempted in comment 121 to explain the basic heat exchange between a fireplace fire and a metal poker. But this fell on deaf ears [other than those who actually know something about the subject].

A couple of basic principles. first, heat always flows from from hot to cold. Any exchange of heat can NEVER result in the heated object reaching a temperature EQUAL OR GREATER than the heat source itself.

For an office fire that is at most between 500 and 650 C, it means that steel beams in proximity to that heat source will never reach that same temp. Not even if you specifically designed a HEAT EXCHANGER of the most advanced type, whose heat transfer effectiveness will at most reach about 90 percent.

I'm not going to attempt to explain the physical mechanisms of heat transfer here because that is just too big for a simple comment. But I will try to give a very basic introduction to the subject.

If you put a pot of water on a red-hot stove element, the heat will travel into the pot by means of conduction, which requires direct physical contact. The same is true for the earlier example of the fireplace poker lying on hot coals.

This would not have occurred in the WTC because the steel beams would not have been in contact with any hot coals or hot SOLID object.

Instead, the beams would be exposed to radiation from the flames. Radiation is the weakest kind of heat transfer. If you raise that pot of water up an inch above the stove, it will get heat only from radiation, and it will take literally forever for that water to boil---if it ever does.

The third mechanism is convection, where you have a flowing fluid, either gas or liquid. This is how most heat exchangers work, including a radiator where hot liquid flows from top to bottom, while cool air flows in between small gaps to carry away heat.

A heating torch is also an example of convection, because the torch gas is flowing under pressure and CONTINUOUSLY flowing over the part that is to be heated. This video of an oxy-acetylene torch heating a small steel bar shows how this works.

Notice how quickly the cherry-red hot spot cools down. This is because of the heat conductivity of steel which I mentioned in 121. The heat quickly flows from the hot to the cold end, continuously.

Now two things to keep in mind here. That oxy-acetylene torch has a flame temp of over 3,000 C, the hottest gas flame temp of any fuel. And also the CONVECTION, which means that NEW hot gas is CONSTANTLY flowing over the same spot. Anyone who has thawed meat in the sink knows that running the tap water over the meat continuously thaws it much more quickly, compared to just putting it in a pot of water and letting it sit. This is because of the convection of the running water.

Now there is NO convection in an office fire, other than the very weak natural convection which results from heated air rising. This is why smoke rises. But again, this kind of rising air current convection is orders of magnitude less effective than FORCED convection like you have in a torch [or even a water tap].

This has to do with the MASS FLOW of the hot gas. A weak natural rising gas and smoke column is going to carry much less MASS of hot gas, than a stream of hot gas under PRESSURE and moving very quickly.

I have already talked about the jet fuel. Those airplanes had only about 10,000 gallons on board [NIST], which is only about 40 percent of their full capacity of 24,000 gal. I have explained why those fireballs would have consumed MOST of that fuel.

The tanks in the wings shattered in the first microseconds of impact and the fuel was vaporized and flung in all directions. here is a picture of the second airplane fireball.

Any fuel that may have been left inside the building would quickly burn off, because jet fuel has a high flash point and boils easily. It is simply not true that the jet fuel would have burned for a long time and at high temperatures. Even the journal article I linked to previously which argues in favor of the fire collapse, admits the technical reality of diffuse flame, which is a low temperature flame characterized by a lot of BLACK smoke.

We see in the picture the first building the huge amounts of BLACK SMOKE. That means a low temperature flame.

Now these are the physical realities. Most here will not understand this fully and some will simply dismiss it on the grounds that the 'alternative' scenarios supposedly don't make 'sense.'

Well, nothing makes LESS sense than an explanation that flies in the face of physics.

I have never undertaken, nor am I interested in, the job of putting forth 'alternative' explanations. All I am doing here is using my knowledge of physics to state that the official explanation is not possible.

Specifically the notion that a low-temperature office fire could somehow transfer MASSIVE quantities of heat into thousands of tons of steel. There is no conceivable mechanism of heat transfer available in this scenario that could do that. The steel beams would not and COULD NOT have been heated very much at all.

The strength of structural steel actually INCREASES with temperature up to about 350 C! It is not until past 400 C that strength begins to decrease.

In a 500 C office fire, reaching even 200 C in steel beams would, in my professional opinion, be highly unlikely. That is to say reaching that temperature uniformly throughout the thickness of the beam.

Even if we take the NIST at face value, who claim that SOME areas reached a temp of close to 1,000 C, the steel beams would not have reached an INTERNAL temp of 400 C at most. At that internal temp structural steel still has 80 percent of its strength.

Remember the oxy-acetylene video. Here we have a 3,200 C flame, plus convection heat transfer and it is difficult to even reach cherry red, which is a temp of 600 to 700 C. how on earth can you expect a flame one third of that temp, and without convection [this is crucial] to reach similar temps? It is patently IMPOSSIBLE!

This heat transfer issue is only ONE aspect of the story. I do not purport to have ALL the answers. But as Prof Hulsey and his team showed with their Building 7 study, the official narrative is a BIG LIE.

As I said right from the get-go, for me it is enough to know [and to show] that they are LYING. How they actually did it, or let it happen, will probably never be known with any certainty.

There is simply no physical evidence left. The aircraft flight recorders have been seized and are kept secret. The camera footage from the Pentagon surrounding area has likewise been seized and is being kept secret. We can do nothing more than simply chip away at the actual physics. That is all.

Posted by: Gordog | Sep 12 2021 19:45 utc | 230

Tuyzentfloot @Sep12 18:45 #224

There is a great piece about the Dancing Israelis at the Grayzone. It concludes , maybe not definitively but quite reasonably that they had nothing to do with the whole event.

Maybe the conclusion is not quite as reasonable as you think.

They only get to that reasonable conclusion/sarc by unskeptical reporting of a narrative that is favorable to Israel AND by withholding important facts, like:

  • the nonsensical excuse that the group gave to the reason for filming and celebrating: that they were there to "document" a terrorist attack that would have benefits for Israel. But they were celebrating and "documenting" before anyone knew that it was a terrorist attack. (as I described @Sep12 19:29 #227)
  • That what we know from FOIA release is not the whole story. The release came with a message saying that it was "Heavily redacted, Portions Classified until 2030-35" as shown at 00:50 in this video.

<> <> <> <> <>

The progressive hero's at Greyzone wouldn't push a false narrative, would they? (Yeah, they would.) And an moa reader wouldn't praise such an effort, would they? (Tuyzentfloot is Greyzone fan/apologist).



Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 20:07 utc | 231

@Norwegian, @Gordog, @Retiredmecheng, @others that particiapated

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on an important subject.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 20:10 utc | 232

@213 "How come they were released?"

Good question. The official version is they were investigated by the FBI and released for lack of evidence.

Posted by: dh | Sep 12 2021 20:27 utc | 233

I don't think this thread would be complete without this:

9/11 families: New Saudi king ran terror-funding charity

Saudi Arabia’s new king, Salman, “actively directed” a Saudi charity whose funding was “especially important to al Qaeda acquiring the strike capabilities used to launch attacks in the U.S.,” say court papers filed this week by lawyers representing 9/11 victims and their families.

The Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC), which Salman led from its founding in 1993 until it closed in 2011, helped fund “the very al Qaeda camps where the 9/11 hijackers received their training for the attacks, and the safe haven and facilities in Afghanistan where senior officials of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, planned and coordinated the attacks,” the court papers say.

A United Nations-sponsored investigation determined Salman, the new king, “transferred in excess of $120 million from his personal accounts and SHC accounts under his control to the Third World Relief Agency [TWRA]” from July 1992 to July 1995, the pleading says.

. . .

The 9/11 Commission identified Third World Relief as an al Qaeda front and pipeline for illegal arms shipments to al Qaeda fighters in the Balkans.

In October 2001, the U.S. and NATO raided SHC’s office in Sarajevo. On computer hard drives, the pleading says, investigators discovered files on deploying chemical agents with crop dusters, information on how to make fake State Department badges, and photographs and maps of Washington, marking prominent government buildings.

Also found: before and after photographs of the World Trade Center and photographs of other terrorist targets, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole.

Bosnian police soon arrested six al Qaeda members for plotting to conduct terrorist strikes on U.S. targets. Each was on SHC’s payroll and all six were later incarcerated at Guantanamo, the pleading says.

Government investigations also found evidence that the SHC played “a direct role” in arms trafficking for al Qaeda, the pleading says.

Yet, despite the above - which must be well known to CIA - USA supported King Salman's ascension to the throne and works with his chosen successor, MbS who was made crown prince in what, to many, appears to be a coup as it up-ended the Saudi system of succession.

USA/CIA/Empire rewards those that provide key assistance.

Saudi assistance would've given them access to al Queda and valuable intelligence that they would likely have been compelled to provide to USA. It may have given them the ability to suggest targets as well.

Israel and Mossad work closely together and, while CIA can't spy in USA, Mossad could. Is that why Mossad was tracking the terrorists with what seems to have been a fairly large contingent of operatives in the months leading up to 9-11?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 20:37 utc | 234

dh @Sep12 20:27 #233

Something tells me that the FBI was told that the group "belonged to intelligence" and to "leave it alone", just as Acosta was told the same about Epstein in 2008.

From what I understand there was also political pressure (from AIPAC Congress) to let them go.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 20:47 utc | 235


Even here, the debate over what is or is not reality continues.

Goebbels, CKS, the Song Dynasty, and the Dulles brothers are laughing in their grave.

Posted by: Pacifica Advocate | Sep 12 2021 20:50 utc | 236

They laugh from hell.

Posted by: Pacifica Advocate | Sep 12 2021 20:52 utc | 237

@ Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 19:29 utc | 227... to your last question.. exactly... how would they know in advance?? this was an inside job.. that's why...

Posted by: james | Sep 12 2021 20:53 utc | 238

@235 That's very likely. 'Someone' high up in the FBI was told not to investigate too closely. Just as 'someone' in the media was told to let the story fade away.

There are plenty of theories to choose from. My own feeling is that 'someone' knew 911 was being planned and they let it go ahead. The word got out 'somehow' and the Israelis got too excited.

Posted by: dh | Sep 12 2021 21:00 utc | 239

The Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) theory mentioned here is likely a Limited Hangout.

That is, it is a limited admission of guilt about 9-11 in order to cover up a much greater crime, which is the MIHOP theory—Made It Happen On Purpose.

Instead of the American regime deliberately allowing 9-11 to happen, MIHOP asserts that the United States orchestrated and executed the 9-11 attacks themselves—with some likely help from allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, or NATO nations.

MIHOP is much more damning than LIHOP and is a bridge too far for most Americans or the “Free World” and its media in general.

Even much of the supposed “alternative media” on both the political Left and Right wings are allergic to the MIHOP theory because it is so politically explosive.

However, the collapse of World Trade Center 7 building--and the issue of the Pentagon attack--are some of the most suggestive evidence supporting the MIHOP theory.

Those who accept MIHOP are red-pilled, to use a favorite pop cultural reference from the movie The Matrix.

As Morpheus says to Neo in this movie: “You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

If the United States did 9-11 to its own citizens, then think what other crimes it has committed.

Better yet, you can surmise that the Americans have and will perpetrate even greater evil against non-Americans.

As George W. Bush said, Evil-Doers are guilty of the September 11th attacks.

What he forget to mention, however, is that these Evil-Doers aren't from some distant foreign nation but rather bleed Red, White, and Blue.

Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11


Posted by: ak74 | Sep 12 2021 21:05 utc | 240

Gordog "The strength of structural steel actually INCREASES with temperature up to about 350 C! It is not until past 400 C that strength begins to decrease."

That is something that is quite wrong. Its toughness may increase due to increased plasticity, but its strength decreases due to the increase plasticity or malleability.
Charpy impact test measures toughness, various units are used to measure tensile strength. Tensile strength is the strain it can take before plastic deformation, ultimate tensile which is when metal has work hardened due to some plastic deformation.
In steels tensile strength and hardness go hand in hand but with the increase in hard there is a decrease in toughness. Elements like vandium are added to the likes of various tool steels which makes grain size small and helps increase toughness in tool steels, but still they may not have the toughness or impact resistance of a mild or low alloy steel.
Stress relieving is at relatively low temps 200c relieves stress in steel.
Remaining floor beams where the planes hit, columns either side of the planes strike all under a great deal of stress. An I agree, not much heat would have transferred to the columns, but enough to create thermal expansion. The columns though must remain perfectly aligned to with stand the load. This is done by the floor trusses. On at least two floors a good number of these were destroyed or damaged. Both buildings at the very initiation of the collapse, the section of the building above the impact are tilted slightly to side that the plane struck, which to me meant that those remaining columns towards the corners had given way.
WTC 7 is something I leave completely open, but the two towers, with exact extent of structural damage unknown, I very much doubt if anything other than the plane strikes brought them down.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 12 2021 21:05 utc | 241

And just to finish off this subject with another example from the kitchen that everyone can understand.

If you put a five pound chicken into an oven of 400 F, it will take nearly TWO HOURS FOR the internal temp of the meat to reach the desired 160 F.

Yes folks, heat transfer doesn't just 'happen' without any physics. And even the NIST claim [which is bunk] that some areas of the burning building reached air temps of 1,000 C, means that after that hour or so that went by, the INTERNAL temp of those big steel beams would be lucky to reach 200 or 300 C.

Also worth noting. Of the few pieces of steel examined by NIST they found no surface traces of temps higher than 250 to 300 C.

Posted by: Gordog | Sep 12 2021 21:06 utc | 242

".. the debate over what is or is not reality continues.

Goebbels, CKS, the Song Dynasty, and the Dulles brothers are laughing in their grave."

Posted by: Pacifica Advocate | Sep 12 2021 20:50 utc | 236

CKS Clinical Knowledge Summaries (UK NHS)
CKS Checks
CKS Checksum
CKS Community Kit for Sharepoint
CKS Center for Korean Studies (UC Berkeley)
CKS Community Kit for SharePoint (software)
CKS Christ the King School (various locations)
CKS Centre for Kentish Studies (UK)
CKS Center for Knowledge Societies
CKS Cave and Karst Studies (environmental science)
CKS Carajas, Para, Brazil - International / Brasilia Brazil (Airport Code)
CKS Clay Kitten Shooting
CKS Crankshaft Sensor (automotive)
CKS Challenges of the Knowledge Society (Bucharest, Romania)
CKS Christian Key Smashers (gaming clan)

and what were the Song Dynasty singing?

Posted by: tucenz | Sep 12 2021 21:16 utc | 243


Thanks for your comments on this topic. You state "Both buildings at the very initiation of the collapse, the section of the building above the impact are tilted slightly to side that the plane struck, which to me meant that those remaining columns towards the corners had given way."

I think you are alluding to photographs and video that show the top sections (above the impact zones) of both WTC1 and WTC2. Yes they are "tilted slightly", just as the collapse sequence begins. But this implies that the massive central building core (elevators, etc) has been totally severed. Fire cannot do this, and neither can the impact of the planes (as the fuselages would have been shredded pretty much instantaneously upon contact with the exterior columns). If you look at the videos, once the "tilted slightly" occurs, the top sections disintegrate before they can fall over. What plausible mechanism can cause that disintegration?

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 12 2021 21:25 utc | 244

RE: Posted by: Paul | Sep 12 2021 19:36 utc | 228

“I don't conflate '[we] the people' with some 'Papa Czar' figure.”

You apparently believe that I made a conflation when I did not, but encouraged a certain “interpretation” by you to which you reacted.

You apparently don't understand the connection of false assignment of agency and significance, including by your assertion of “The Viet Nam war was won in the streets of America” and hence your follow on remark of:

“I also welcome consciousness raising, even incremental.”

where the content and purpose of “consciousness raising” is not specified.

Hence like some opponents you fail to see the efforts of the opponents of encouraged ignorance has utility for others whilst being immersed in such, illustrated by your remark that:

“The Viet Nam war was won in the streets of America, “

and the resort to binaries in the follow on of :
“not the battlefield. “

thereby failing to perceive the multiple agents and vectors which facilitated the mutations of the “war” into different forms post 1969, 1973 or 1975.

Such ensures your continuing spectatorship and reliance upon “I'm hoping for a repeat performance this time around”

whilst simultaneously seeking to pass an assertion as an “opinion” of

“although it may be driven more by events than knowledge and consciousness.”

on matters which you have little if any experience or facility, whilst attempting to assign significance to your assertion by

“You are are welcome to your opinion.” with the likely unsaid follow on assertion of “as I am....”

which if you

“... are acutely aware of the coercive nature of governments”

you would understand is complete nonsense, whilst having utility for others to render you and your associates useful fools whether dead or alive, as some troops were prone to do when their “officers” insisted that their “opinions” were orders to be followed.

Thank you for your illustrations of, and level of immersion in, some of the ideologies of the opponents.

Posted by: MagdaTam | Sep 12 2021 21:27 utc | 245

Gordog 123
Has anyone looked at the possibility that the Twin Towers were not built to spec? Did the contractors building the towers use inferior steel for the central column? Did they cut corners on the joins/joints in the steel? Were the floors correctly connected to the central column. Were the engineers who oversaw the building bought off. If the tower was built by the mates of Donald Trump, it is not hard to see this happening. Then collapsing under stress, because it was not built to the standard specified.

Posted by: Ron McKenzie | Sep 12 2021 21:28 utc | 246

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 12 2021 19:06 utc | 225

Castro’s comments right after the assassination are something, could not find the original in Spanish, a lot could be quoted but this one is still valid after so many years, and not only for the JFK affair.

And it is necessary for all people of the United States themselves to demand that what is behind the Kennedy assassination be clarified.

Very serious matters are discussed but I could not stop laughing at some parts, like these:

Now we find that the man who murdered Kennedy is pro-Castro. We know there are very few pro-Castros — what they call “pro-Castros” in the United States.

The report adds that Wade has been District Attorney in twenty-four murder cases and secured twenty-three death penalties. It seems that this District Attorney is a hangman — a life sentence in the other case.

Thanks to Walter for that link, Castro was something, a fortress like his family name and a loyal one like his name.

Posted by: Paco | Sep 12 2021 21:29 utc | 247

Ron McKenzie

In the official investigation they compared photos during various stages of construction to the drawings and found some differences.
Nothing as far as I know from the impact areas was retrieved from the debris, so fasteners, steel thickness connections ect are a slight unknown.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 12 2021 21:34 utc | 248

I don't know what explanations there are for the WTC collapse and I would not know how to proceed on them without huge effort.
My trust in math is constrained by the realization that math always works inside a model. You transfer reality to the model, calculate in the model and then translate back to reality. Transferring reality to the model is tricky. There is always assumptions on what can be safely dismissed. Experts can be aware of these assumptions and know whether they can be safely dismissed.

I can imagine a toy model with 50 steel rods, with a rigid slab on top and a weight on top of that. So I model heating up some rods and what it takes for them to melt. Damn that is a bit much. So WTC had to be controlled demolition. Then I think again and consider that all it takes is to make make them hot enough to buckle. That is a lot less. Again , dammit, these numbers are high. Therefore WTC was controlled demolition. I can at least go one step further and look for cascading effects. Suppose you heat up 5 rods so they expand and carry the whole load of the weight above them. Could that cause those 5 to buckle after which other rods get overloaded? Sounds like an interesting modelling exercise of stability: find a distribution of heating/expansion so that when one rod goes, they all end up going. I can't tell if that scenario can be dismissed but before I thought of it the lack of alternatives made the previous proof convincing. I suspect there are models which take the expansion in account and calculate resulting stresses. Maybe it can be dismissed but you have to look at how beams are connected. Maybe something goes there.
After understanding the whole thing one can simplify the complex model to a simple one. This is explanation but not proof. I still would have to trust the expert in that what was dismissed was irrelevant.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 12 2021 21:56 utc | 249

Grenfell Towers June 14 2017 - totally engulfed in flames yet surprisingly did not go into freefall.

Posted by: ted001 | Sep 12 2021 21:59 utc | 250


I'll start with my view of the structure from hands on view point. I have not tried to calculate the length to cross section ratio of the columns but liken them to say a one meter vertical length of 3mm wire that has to carry a load. That will have a reasonable load bearing capacity if it can be kept perfectly straight. To make the job of keeping that wire perfectly a little more difficult, it is made up of short sections but joined together, the joint have far less bending strength. Those butt joins in the columns of the building would give way long before the columns bent.

Back to the lengths of wire, it is the floor trusses which keeps them the straight. A big unknown is what damage was done to the central columns. Bracing damaged, perhaps a few columns knocked a little out of alignment, but even without that, they are still those lengths of wire.
Computer modeling is good, but only as good as the inputs. There are just so many variables here, especially the exact damage done by the impact.
On the core columns as the building went down, certainly past the impact site those columns could be seen as the building stripped down around them. At the impact site, my thought is they would have broke as the building tilted. Just one thing on those though. I do not remember if they were welded or bolted same as the outer columns.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 12 2021 22:00 utc | 251

If the fires were so hot as to melt steel how is it possible that there are photos of a woman standing on the butt end of a piece of structural steel in the opening where the plane crashed into the tower? Wouldn't this be too hot to survive if the melted steel story was correct?

Search for "The woman in the abyss"

Posted by: dog-dip | Sep 12 2021 22:01 utc | 252

Sorry ...The woman at the edge of the abyss

Posted by: dog-dip | Sep 12 2021 22:05 utc | 253

Another piece of war porn is the 'gallantry' of Ukrainian troops rescuing trapped Canadians. This has received much play in Canada. Rather than actually leaving the airport to rescue people trapped in the city - something Canada JTF2 were loath to do, as well, the Ukrainians merely forced an opening in the refugee crowd outside the gate they were guarding, to admit two buses, one of which they might have recognized.

The video of the rescue also shows them fleeing for cover when somebody else began firing over the heads of the crowd. This video has been replaced in Canadian media with the refugees glorious arrival in Kyiv.

For this they wanted Canada to sponsor their NATO membership.

Posted by: Kevin Quinn | Sep 12 2021 22:08 utc | 254

dog-dip 250

In clearing the debris, at the bottom of was some steel amount the smoldering fires their that had undergone some high temperature corrosion. Burning or smoldering plastics especially rubber have sulfur. Very corrosive environment.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 12 2021 22:17 utc | 255

What can learned barflies tell me about the toxicity of the dust from the collapsing buildings? Presumably there would have been quite a bit of plastic and e-waste vaporised and mixed into the concrete dust. I know only that FDNY personnel suffered serious chronic conditions afterwards (without proper treatment?), but I suspect the whole of NYC was dosed with unpleasant particulates.

Posted by: Patroklos | Sep 12 2021 22:20 utc | 256

they had them in their sights.the Israelis were tracking them.
the warnings were coming in.
bush knew but never acted.

the question is why?

the war in yemen will tell us.punishment time

Posted by: mcohen | Sep 12 2021 22:26 utc | 257

Patroklos 256

I think there was some analysis of the dust in the official investigation. I did read one some where. Mostly concrete dust with lesser amounts of everything that was in the buildings. Concrete dust on its own is nasty stuff.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 12 2021 22:39 utc | 258

Ron McKenzie wrote:

Has anyone looked at the possibility that the Twin Towers were not built to spec? Did the contractors building the towers use inferior steel for the central column?

Along these lines has always been my theory on what happened. Its not just shoddy construction - shoddy maintenance must also be considered as a possible root cause. To what extent had the integrity of the buildings deteriorated?

In the 1980's the WTC buildings underwent extensive asbestos remediation. So why was asbestos in these buildings in the first place? The answer in part is the asbestos was cladding the structural steel for fire protection. Without the insulation around the exposed structural steel it was likely to fail in the event of fire and thus fire codes required the exposed steel to be protected. Skyscraper steel structures don't collapse in fires only because the steel is required to be protected from fire. How well was the WTC buildings steel protected?

The whole story that steel structures do not collapse due to fire is false. Its just another internet myth. Unprotected steel does fail. the Madrid skyscraper that has been used as an example in this thread demonstrates this perfectly. The outer steel that was exposed to the heat of the fire did fail but the inner structure where the steel was buried in concrete and protected from heat did not fail.

Here is an analysis of a steel building that collapsed due to fire.
Quoting from this article: "The CSW incident is one more example of how quickly unprotected metal structures can fail in a fire."
And there was more black smoke in this fire than the WTC fires.

So the question how much was the integrity of the fire protection of the steel of the WTC buildings compromised due to cutting corners? Well it turns out that insurance did not pay for the asbestos remediation:

What should be abundantly clear to everybody is that if the root cause of a couple thousand innocent American deaths was American corporate greed and and incompetence then there is no possibility that that story is going to see the light of day. What you will see instead is a myriad of conspiracy theories that blame it on anybody and everybody but the true culprits.

If the building had not collapsed thousands of lived would have been be saved.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 12 2021 22:44 utc | 259

@Jackrabbit , I recommend the article because it does a decent job in investigating a possibility which disappoints people. I think it is courageous in that it does not 'talk to the tribe' and it will offend many readers of the Grayzone.
It's a bit looney and offensive to disparage the Grayzone, I think they do a good job, and to reduce me to 'a fanboy' who should be distrusted. That is a serious misrepresentation of who I am.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 12 2021 22:49 utc | 260

Patroklos @Sep12 22:20 #256: What can learned barflies tell me about the toxicity of the dust from the collapsing buildings?
The dust is recognized as having caused hundreds of workers to die of cancer and other diseases and hundreds more to have disabling conditions.

The Bush Administration LIED to these workers, saying that removing 9-11 debris was safe. They evidently wanted to clear the debris ASAP. Some have referred to this as a cleansing of the crime scene. A 'cleansing' that was so important that the lives of thousands of people were sacrificed to make it happen ASAP.

Few people outside NYC are aware of this. It is one of many disturbing facts that are conveniently forgotten as the media focuses on whipping up patriotic fever.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 23:22 utc | 261

Leave it to the MoA resident CLOWN to compare a WAREHOUSE fire to a steel-frame skyscraper. A type of building which has NEVER structurally failed due to fire.

That is a fact, not an 'internet myth.'

Posted by: Gordog | Sep 12 2021 23:25 utc | 262

Tuyzentfloot @Sep12 22:49 #260

- You direct our attention to propaganda and call it 'courageous'.

- You've previously vigorously defended TheGreyZone's editor, Max B., when his credibility has been questioned.

These are facts that inform my opinion.

Readers are free to make up their own minds about who to trust. Some will give 'a pass' to clear manipulation because "they do good work"(tm) (LOL). Others will chose not to.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 23:34 utc | 263

There are two ways to look at it. Investigate if it fell down due to plane strike and associated fire.
A building cannot fall down like that therefore some form of sabotage/demolition must be involved.
Over the years, too much perfectly designed shit has fallen down with no impacts no fires. Very lengthy investigation is usually involved. In those cases blame for the collapse can be nowhere other than design and construction.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 12 2021 23:56 utc | 264

jinn @Sep12 22:44 #259

If the building had not collapsed thousands of lived would have been be saved.

Many lives could've been saved if roof access had not been blocked also.

AFAIK there was no way to unblock it during an emergency that prevented building personnel or firefighters from getting to the door to the roof.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 12 2021 23:57 utc | 265

Yes they let it happen. It is pretty obvious. Aq and neocons both wanted a war and to remake us and the middle east, guess whose vision comes close to reality
Cheeny without a doubt was one of the top dogs u do a proper investigation followed by professional interrogation will get the truth. Don't both with Bush he was just a moronic figurehead.

Posted by: A.z | Sep 13 2021 0:26 utc | 266

Gordog @Sep12 23:25 #262: MoA resident CLOWN

That is not jinn. He is a thoughtful commenter.

That doesn't mean that he's right. He simply raises an interesting possibility that deserves some consideration even if it is unlikely. I think he makes it clear that he is not proposing that his speculation is definitive.

<> <> <> <> <>

IMO, even if the towers fell solely due to the fires ignited by the planes that hit them, it doesn't detract from the facts that point to prior knowledge of the attack by people and organizations that should've prevented the attack.

While establishing that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down instead of suffering a natural collapse would make the false flag more obvious, we shouldn't let that pursuit swamp other evidence of malfeasance that is much more clear: Neocon's call for "a new Pearl Harbor"; WTC7's fall; the lack of plane debris at the Pentagon; dancing Israelis; Israel's tracking of the terrorists for months before the attack; and more.

Perhaps the most damning evidence is the willingness to use Jihadis in Syria - especially allowing the rise of ISIS. USA and its ME allies are clearly comfortable with extreme Islam as a tool - even after 9-11!. They've been using it since the mid-1980's. Why should we not think that they would used that tool against *us* (in the form of a "new Pearl Harbor")?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 13 2021 0:43 utc | 267

Jackrabbit Osama and the photo of him in the whitehouse as a freedom fighter. In Chechnya, the CIA kept working with al qaeda or whatever name they had given them for Chechnya right through the 9/11 events. Through the late 90's jihadis from Afghanistan moved to Chechnya.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 1:07 utc | 268

Posted by: jinn | Sep 12 2021 22:44 utc | 259

Who wrote:
"The whole story that steel structures do not collapse due to fire is false. Its just another internet myth. Unprotected steel does fail. the Madrid skyscraper that has been used as an example in this thread demonstrates this perfectly. The outer steel that was exposed to the heat of the fire did fail but the inner structure where the steel was buried in concrete and protected from heat did not fail."

Good point. I noticed at an oil refinery shut down [regular maintenance], the protective concrete around the steel coulombs supporting the catalytic cracker plant were regularly jackhammered off to expose the steel beams for inspection for corrosion. The concrete was later replaced. Mere asbestos would not do the job in the event of a fire.

Posted by: Paul | Sep 13 2021 2:38 utc | 269


Yes, fireproofing is applied to some steel structures (usually "critical structures" only) in oil refineries. Sometimes it is concrete fireproofing, and sometimes it is fibrous materials (asbestos, etc). The requirements are dictated by the specification/rating for the fireproofing - ie, time at temperature. Refineries are infamous for the potential of infernos caused by "jet fires" involving pressurized LPG, sustained pool fires from less volatile liquids, and various types of explosions (deflagrations and detonations).

My understanding is both WTC1 and WTC2 had concrete fireproofing applied to the perimeter walls of the elevator cores. It was probably required by the building code at the time - to provide the required "rating". As well, asbestos fireproofing was sprayed on the trusses, for similar reasons. In my opinion, there is no credible scenario where the fireproofing in WTC1 and WTC2 did not function largely as intended.

As Gordog has said previously, "office fires" are normally an order of magnitude less severe in temperature and duration than those often encountered in the oil and gas industry. Structural steel members, of the size encountered in the WTC1 and WTC2 elevator cores, would likely last for hours without serious compromise, even with the building being completely engulfed in sustained inferno (several hours - like the Madrid fire).

As Gordog has stated, other than the initial fireball, there was no sustained inferno observed in either WTC1 or WTC2. Local observed fires would result in local damage only - even if no fireproofing was present to protect the steel. And even then, the local fires would have to be intense, and sustained for hours in the same location.

Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 13 2021 4:40 utc | 270

Off memory the fire or heat proofing around the central columns/elevator shafts was gypsum/plasterboard. But whatever, I very much doubt heating of the columns was and issue.
The floor trusses were much lighter and critical to the structure. Apart from bending/shearing damage to these, how much damage to the spray on insulation? Many variables there along with the variables in bending and shearing damage.
One thing of note that I haven't seen mentioned in comments over the years is that column panels were sheared at the but joints. Basically the bolts sheared like strands of wet noodles when the plane struck.
Something I had wrong in one of my earlier comments. WTC1 did not tilt toward the side impacted.
I have not yet dug up original footage to recheck which way WTC 2 tilted.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 5:01 utc | 271


I'm sorry but what balls. Beneath your pomo rhetoric you are basically complaining about active vs passive tense, that is, about nothing.

Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Sep 13 2021 6:55 utc | 272

I rather liked this description of 911 and Saudi by Nasrine Malik in the Guardian. She's of Sudanese origin.

On 9/11 I was in Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida and the majority of the hijackers were born. At the time the kingdom was in the grip of its hardline religious clergy, at once fostering and battling the same extremism that had reached all the way to New York. To me, 9/11 seemed like something the Saudis had failed to contain – Islamic terror as an epic industrial leak, a reactor meltdown, that meant thousands beyond its borders had perished. And now all of us were going to have to pay the price.

Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 13 2021 8:12 utc | 273

I'm reminded of the Pearl Harbor comparison at the time. I thought, do they realize what they are saying? It has multiple parts and the interaction between items 2 and 3 is interesting:
- a general attitude of 'if they attack us, so much the better'
- foreknowledge and additional actions to allow the attack to happen (LIHOP)
- the easily misinterpreted dismay afterwards that the attack was far more effective than anticipated.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 13 2021 8:45 utc | 274

@Gordog | Sep 12 2021 19:45 utc | 230

Thank you. Falsification is the purest form of science.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 13 2021 8:51 utc | 275

RE: Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Sep 13 2021 6:55 utc | 272

“you are basically complaining about active vs passive tense “

There is/was no complaint made, although you reflexively interpret it as having been made.

It is not a surprise that “the passive” resort to the passive tense.

Unless your opponents are as stupid as you are and perceive your posturings as "existential challenges", it aids the minimisation of blow-back with the complicity of the opponents, who believe that the “benefits” of their ideological forays accrue solely to themselves, and hence is to be recommended
since tourists in war zones do not tend to enjoy continued well-being, or well, continued being.

Prior to, on and after 11th September 1973 the opponents took the posturings of the Socialist Party of Chile and MIR seriously as "existential threats", which facilitated the Condor programmes from 1973 until circa 1980, reflecting the Jakarta methods of 1965 and subsequent,and the Phoenix programmes in South East Asia including but not restricted to Vietnam, and legion de-capitation programmes to date - some thoughts on 9/11 ?

Posted by: MagdaTam | Sep 13 2021 9:03 utc | 276

@retiredmecheng | Sep 13 2021 4:40 utc | 270

Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

Correct. Add WTC7 for good measure.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 13 2021 9:04 utc | 277

Another September 11:

George Bush Sr , New World Order Live Speech Sept 11, 1991

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 13 2021 9:08 utc | 278

LIHOP ?! :-) All right. I've been MIHOP for 15 years.

One just has to read Christopher Lee Bollyn - Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World

Posted by: Stephane | Sep 13 2021 10:21 utc | 279

I am well aware that you have all been waiting with infinite patience on this most fascinating, and in many parts, technologically very sophisticated thread for me to finally just come right out and explain what really happened on September 11, 2001. Sorry to cause you to wait so long.

Here, I will focus on only the Twin Towers, for important reasons. Think about this: The people who perpetrated it needed to be absolutely certain the results would turn out in precisely the manner in which they did.

They had to spend hundreds of millions of US dollars, actually presumably far more, to ensure that.

Only the Pervasive Shadow Regime (PSR), who are far above the alphabet agencies, the City of London, Washington, et al., could have done it. There will be no 'leaks' because they are arrogatoniacs who utilized an army of mostly sociopathic agents, and sociopaths do not leak.

I started down this rabbit hole about one year ago when some blogger asserted that there exists absolutely no earthly technological means that can account for the totally bizarre manner in which the Twin Towers were disintegrated. After all, they did not merely 'fall', nor did they detonate -- they super-energetically deflagrated from the top down -- they simply blasted apart like a firework 'sprinkle shower stick'. Absolutely nothing less than nuclear power could have furnished the energy required. So what are the realistic possibilities(?):

1) Space alien technology.
2) Man-portable 'micro-nukes' scattered throughout the structures.
3) Something else.

I'm not ready to go down the space alien rabbit hole just yet. The 'micro-nukes' theory has the (insurmountable) defect that they would certainly cause discrete explosions, but not the very continuous top-down deflagrations we observed. So -- it must have been something (nuclear) else. But what?

We can say that there are are probably at least a dozen different kinds of nuclear weapons. Let's talk about three for now. They are all 'chain reaction' devices. There is chain reaction fission and fusion. The simplest one is pure fission, where huge uranium or plutonium atoms are split apart. The next step is fission-fusion, whereby a fission device 'initiates', or 'triggers' very small deuterium and tritium (hydrogen isotopes) to fuse together to form helium (as happens in the sun). This fusion (H-bomb) produces vast amounts of 'fast neutrons'. Now, we can surround this with yet more uranium, and those 'fast neutrons' will trigger this to detonate with incredible energy.

Now for the something else. Nuclear fire does not actually need the 'chain reaction' process to trigger the fusion process. For example, when the CERN Super Collider lost its containment years ago it was feared that the 'directed' super-fast proton beam might be powerful enough to trigger a fusion conflagration in some of the materials at the facility. Protons are not too good for that because their intense positive charge causes them to be easily blocked by most materials, and by air. We might wish to use much more penetrating neutrons, but lacking any electrical charge, they cannot realistically 'directed'. We could use helium nuclei, which have two protons plus two neutrons (called 'alpha rays' at low speed), but we could obtain about twice the penetration with fast tritium ions (having one proton plus two neutrons).

There exists something called 'lithium deuteride', which (I would guess) would yield a super-powerful thermonuclear deflagration if struck by a fast directed tritium ion beam (which could be 'directed' onto it in a controlled fashion). So -- to deflagrate the Twin Towers -- someone could simply 'plant' lithium deuteride within them, and 'play' a tritium ion beam upon them. Easy peasy.

Posted by: blues | Sep 13 2021 10:24 utc | 280

retiredmecheng wrote:

My understanding is both WTC1 and WTC2 had concrete fireproofing applied to the perimeter walls of the elevator cores. It was probably required by the building code at the time - to provide the required "rating". As well, asbestos fireproofing was sprayed on the trusses, for similar reasons. In my opinion, there is no credible scenario where the fireproofing in WTC1 and WTC2 did not function largely as intended.
Your assumptions may be correct or maybe not. The fact is we don't know. We do know that there was asbestos remediation in those buildings in the 1980's, but there has not been much detail revealed to the public about exactly what was done and that in itself is suspicious.

The story that steel structures don't collapse in fires is just BS. Steel structures are very much in danger of catastrophic failure in fires. That is the reason that building codes and standards require that the builders take expensive steps to fireproof the steel itself and build in extra load bearing capacity so that the building will not collapse in a fire. These measures add significantly to the cost of the building which suggests a motive for cutting corners to reduce cost.

There are basically 2 sides to the WTC collapse debate. One side wants to blame it on govt or TPTB and the other side wants to blame it on terrorist. Both sides are opposed to considering facts that show the cause of the collapses may have been shoddy workmanship in design, construction and maintenance of the buildings.

What we do know is that the structural steel did fail due to some cause and we do know that the steel was scrapped quickly before any forensic analysis could be done on it. One can argue that was destroyed to cover up the govts guilt, but it is also possible they did not want to see any evidence that undermined the story that all the deaths were caused by foreign terrorists and none by American negligence.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 13 2021 13:04 utc | 281

Blues 280, Thank you for the good laugh.

Posted by: Cunctator | Sep 13 2021 13:13 utc | 282

@jinn | Sep 13 2021 13:04 utc | 28

There are basically 2 sides to the WTC collapse debate. One side wants to blame it on govt or TPTB and the other side wants to blame it on terrorist.

This false dichotomy is designed to distract from the actual perpetrators.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 13 2021 13:44 utc | 283


Thanks again for your comment. It would be really useful if you could link to the video(s) and photo(s) that show both towers "tilting slightly", and the subsequent disintegration of the top sections. Sometimes "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a video is worth a million words. This is one of those times. I could dig them up myself, but I'm not that good at links...

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 13 2021 13:51 utc | 284

LIHOP is a cop-out. LIHOP vs. MIHOP is a distraction. LIHOP isn't any less cruel and immoral. Anyone that LIHOP is legally a co-conspirator.

WTC was known to be a target of al Queda because of their attack on WTC in Feb. 1993. Al Queda was also known to attack targets again if they had not been successful the first time. Simply reinforcing WTC's base (after the first attack) was not necessarily going to deter them.

PNAC signatories knew these things when PNAC began in June 1997 and when PNAC called for a 'new Pearl Harbor' (September 2000). Only a year later, they got their "new Pearl Harbor". Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, eleven of these went on to serve in the GWBush Administration, including: GW Bush (his brother Jeb being the signer), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Other 'notables' involved with PNAC included: William Bennett, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Robert Zoellick.

<> <> <> <> <>

For PNAC's plans for a "new Pearl Harbor" to come to fruition, not only did an attack need to happen, it needed to be successful. There would not be another chance for years, if ever, because more stringent security measures would be put into place after another major attack.

The many strange facts about the 9-11 attacks indicate that steps were taken to ensure that the attack succeeded: tracking the Saudi patsies while in USA, eliminating evidence ASAP after the attack, helping powerful friends via opportunistic demolition of WTC7 and blowing up part of the Pentagon. That is MIHOP not LITHOP but the difference is splitting hairs.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 13 2021 14:58 utc | 285

Gareth Porter:

There are multiple people in the US who are "NOT Happy" that the Biden administration withdrew from Afghanistan. These people are all part of the socalled "Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media complex". And part of the that complex is also the New York Times.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 13 2021 17:12 utc | 286

The Bigest Lie: Nothing to See Here

If YOU (Joe Nobody), were a member of an organization that asserted its superiority ...

and publicly hoped for a vicious attack on your fellow Americans/neighbors ...

then such an attack occurred a year later with many dead and injured ...

and it became known that your friends celebrated the attack as it happened; your group arranged to destroy evidence (killing and injuring more innocent people in the process); other friends likely provided financing, and still other friends mysteriously benefited from destruction of records that occurred during the attack ...

then YOU and the others in your group would certainly fall under suspicion and be investigated thoroughly. No stone would be unturned, no lead too obscure.

But there was no such investigation of the members of the PNAC group of eminent asshats simply because they also have friends that control the security services media as well as the media.

Treason doth never prosper ... if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

The Empire Managers made sure that others prospered from their power-grab via the Bush Tax Cuts - which Obama made permanent in a scam/fiasco called "the Fiscal Cliff". Soon followed by more elite criminality: the Subprime Crisis that sparked the Global Financial Crisis was predictable and warnings were ignored. But once again: there was no accountability for elite misconduct.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 13 2021 17:21 utc | 287

Paco @247--

Just finished Castro's paper. I wonder what his thoughts were about 24 hours later after Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald that I watched live in living black & white. The Warren Commission Report produced the authorized Establishment Conspiracy Theory, which I read when I was 12 in early 1968 before I began working for RFK's campaign as a flyer spreader that Spring. I again link to Fletcher Prouty's "The Guns of Dallas" since it provides the best debunking of the official lie without resorting to ridiculing the "Magic Bullet." Castro was probably somewhat surprised that LBJ's administration didn't go further Right. The Capitalist interests were the ones who profited the most and were likely behind the murder. Here's another very useful compilation of material overthrowing the Establishment's JFK Conspiracy Theory.

911 was planned during Clinton's admin and was to help launch the recently updated goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance that was published in 2000. The USSC Coup that installed Bush is the curious incident as it would appear that Gore was the one selected to be "changed" by the FF, not the already Pro-War Bush/Cheney crew who didn't need any help after what Clinton/Gore did to Serbia. That the 911 Crime wasn't enough is proven by the need for yet another BigLie performance at the UN by Powell, who deserves being shot for his Treason along with the rest of that crew. That enabled the escalation of the already committed Iraq Crime with a view to accomplishing the Yinon Plan to establish a Greater Israel and thus destroy the aspirations of Palestinians and all other people in the region for a peaceful existence. Gore, willingly submitted to the USSC's Coup and subsequently remade himself into an advocate for dealing with the Climate Crisis, successfully hiding his role in 911's preparation.

It's that prep most investigators have overlooked that bugs me, that and the motive to destroy the mass of evidence of massive financial crime and fraud that had occurred during Clinton/Gore that went far beyond what the Enron crime revealed. Do note how effectively that entire latter fact is missing from all media details of 911 as if the evidence never existed in the first place.

The world community ought to be just as worried about the Outlaw US Empire today as it was in 1963, for its essence hasn't changed at all--all of Castro's descriptions are still appropriate and the propagandizing and indoctrination even more insidious and effective that before. The core animus against Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, Collectivism still remains and still comprises the most prominent area of Imperial law breaking. Although its geopolitical and geoeconomic abilities have waned, it's still the planet's most dangerous #1 Terrorist nation just as it was in 1963. Jim Douglas's indispensable book JFK and the Unspeakable - Why He Died and Why It Matters can now be freely read, so there's no longer any excuse why anyone doesn't know the general lines of the who and why for both JFK and the 911 murders and why Woke is now being shoved down the public's throat.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 13 2021 17:33 utc | 288

You seem to make a lot of broad-brush statements (disparaging) but you avoid commenting on specifics. I would like to know your esteemed building collapse theory for WTC7. I suggest re-reading Gordog136 and S184, including the papers referenced therein, prior to drafting your detailed response.
Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 12 2021 17:18 utc | 218

Like it or not, this Fire vs Explosives thread is an inconclusive debate.
Instead of assigning tasks to people with whom you disagree, do your own looking up and sleuthing and submit your conclusions to scrutiny by the participants.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13 2021 17:38 utc | 289

This is one video for I think WTC 1 jets of smoke can be seen coming out shortly before the top section tilts.

This is good piece of video of the plane strike on WTC 2 It gives a good idea of where the damage will be inside the building.

In this a number of good clips of the start of the collapse of WTC 2
In these WTC2 looks to tilt to the side rather than towards the impact side.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 17:59 utc | 290

It is impressive that this topic still brings out the shill to the degree that it does. Makes sense I suppose, given how attached so many people are to whatever narrative they first subscribed to.
In no particular order:
-5 dancing israelis
-Dominic Suter, Urban Moving Systems, vans with explosive residue. (bonus points for the company logo)
-Lucky Larry's breakfast nook
-Shanksville hole with NO plane.
-Pentagon hole, with NO plane
-Massive round the clock digital transfer of funds of funds right up to the day.
-Building 7
-Building 6 (customs building) hollowed out from the inside.
-ZERO black boxes, but undamaged passport.
-Insider trading on United and American stocks
-Warnings to many people in high places not to travel.
-NIST "revising" the laws of physics to accommodate their version of reality.
-israeli art students camped out in buildings 1&2
-And finally something I only just became aware of:

Posted by: Chevrus | Sep 13 2021 18:05 utc | 291

I have just been looking through compilation of WTC2 collapse again and in one shot, at the 4 minute 21/22 second mark the start of the collapse is clearly seen. At that 4.21 mark, full column panels at the impact level collapse inwards allowing the building to tilt. To me that means there is no longer any floor trusses in that area to brace them.

Same video as my last link, but it should kick off at the time the panels collapse inwards.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 18:12 utc | 292

@Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 17:59 utc | 290

This is one video for I think WTC 1 jets of smoke can be seen coming out shortly before the top section tilts.

Listen to the woman reporter in that video. She doesn't sound very agitated nor surprised.

A while after the second tower fell, she calls out (1:34:55 into the video) "More stuff is collapsing, more stuff is collapsing they just said", and the wide area view immediately zooms in and carefully centers on WTC7. However, that 47 story building did not fall until many hours later (5:20 PM). It wasn't hit by a plane, but it did free-fall symmetrically into its own footprint.

WTC7 was subject to the study performed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks
University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse on 9/11

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 13 2021 18:32 utc | 293

Chevrus "NIST "revising" the laws of physics to accommodate their version of reality."

I compared various other claims to the relevant sections in the NIST report and it wasn't NIST revising laws of physics.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 19:08 utc | 294

For reference, sky scrapers on fire that didn't fall

Al Tayer Tower (Dubai) 2012

Dubai January 1, 2016

Mandarin Oriental hotel, Beijing 2009 (burned for 6 hours)

Grozny, Chechnya 2009

Grenfell Tower, London 2017

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 13 2021 19:28 utc | 295

It is sad. I do think the public's appetite for war is at a post vietnam low. It will probably stay here for a long time. Maybe that is why they have resorted to biowarfare. :)

Posted by: goldhoarder | Sep 13 2021 19:34 utc | 296

@hoarsewhisper @141 @289

You conclude, in response to the analysis provided by Gordog on this thread - "Unmitigated claptrap. All of it." Yet when prompted to provide a basis for your conclusion, you state it is not up to others to assign you homework. Of course, you are absolutely right. But we did succeed in establishing the level of your intellectual curiosity.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 13 2021 20:21 utc | 297

Chevrus | Sep 13 2021 18:05 utc | 291

Thanks for the last vid. Very convincing. If there was any doubt then, it has removed it for me.

BUT, it means that a vast number of people were involved and thorough preparations must have been made long before. (Which included the destruction of evidence).

As the "cover-up" involves so many people, the discipline must be enormous, or the threat of violence enough to keep them quiet.
The only unfinished part of the vid., concerns the people on the two or four planes concerned (or less!). Note that the boarding lists were muddled, changed etc. for quite some time after 9/11, and I don't think they were ever confirmed. (Except for those accused of the highjacking of course).

Posted by: Stonebird | Sep 13 2021 20:25 utc | 298

So many retired alpha males here with various qualifications and overblown senses of their engineering correctness. I like the diversity of opinion but really tire of the abuse, sniping, unwarranted bullying, etc. I also think that the USE of CAPS should be OUTLAWED!!! Argghhh CLOWNS! (yes, Gordog I respect your viewpoint a great deal but you are one of the main offenders: 'SPECT MY 'THORITAAAY!)

But seriously, can't you all just... get along?

Posted by: Patroklos | Sep 13 2021 20:59 utc | 299

".......Before 9/11 U.S. intelligence knew of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and of plans for new attacks. Then came 9/11. I am by now one of those who thinks that they let it happen on purpose. That is because all the wars that followed had long been prepared for.

Oh, we're waaaaaaaaay past LIHOP, b.

That ship sailed a looooooong time ago, and the truth weren't on it when it left port.

You're gonna have to do better than that......

The Dancing Israelis: FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks

September 10th, 2019

By Whitney Webb Whitney Webb
NEW YORK — For nearly two decades, one of the most overlooked and little known arrests made in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks was that of the so-called “High Fivers,” or the “Dancing Israelis.” However, new information released by the FBI on May 7 has brought fresh scrutiny to the possibility that the “Dancing Israelis,” at least two of whom were known Mossad operatives, had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Shortly after 8:46 a.m. on the day of the attacks, just minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center, five men — later revealed to be Israeli nationals — had positioned themselves in the parking lot of the Doric Apartment Complex in Union City, New Jersey, where they were seen taking pictures and filming the attacks while also celebrating the destruction of the towers and “high fiving” each other.

At least one eyewitness interviewed by the FBI had seen the Israelis’ van in the parking lot as early as 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the attack. The story received coverage in U.S. mainstream media at the time but has since been largely forgotten......

Posted by: W.W. | Sep 13 2021 21:35 utc | 300

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.