Newly released aerial photos of the World Trade Center terror attack capture the towers’ dramatic collapse, from just after the first fiery plane strike to the apocalyptic dust clouds that spread over lower Manhattan. But the photos suggest something else was going on. This does not look like a “collapse”. 
The images were taken from a police helicopter–the only photographs allowed in the air space near the towers on September 11, 2001. Underwriters Laboratory had certified the steel up to 2,000°F for three to four hours. When NIST sampled 236 pieces of steel, it found 233 had not even been exposed to temperatures above 500°F–and the other three not above 1,200°F.
ABC News obtained them among 2,779 pictures released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA). In the air for three hours, Det. Greg Semendinger took three rolls of 36 stills with his personal Minolta Maxxum 7000 camera and another 245 with his digital Olympus U-2100.
It took a year for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to respond to ABC News. NIST may not have wanted to release them, because they contradict its theory that the heat from the fires cause the towers to collapse. Since the fires were not evenly distributed, any “collapse” should have been asymmetrical, too–slow and gradual, not complete and total.
Semendinger gave his photographs to the 9/11 commission set up to investigate the attack. From there, they made their way to NIST as part of its probe of the buildings’ destruction. This one shows the fragile “bathtub” beneath the towers, which kept Hudson River water out. They remained intact only because the buldings did not collapse but were turned to dust.
Notice that the South Tower has already turned to dust, which is enveloping lower Manhattan. The modest fires only burned for about an hour in the South Tower and an hour and a half in the North Tower–neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. 
How could anyone–including NIST–have viewed the conversion of these two 500,000-ton towers into millions of cublic yards of very fine dust and concluded that they had “collapsed”? It reminds me of the old Richard Pryor joke, “Who are you going to believe–me or your lying eyes?” Ask yourself!
Notice the remnants of its core columns of the North Tower. Footage of the destruction of the building actually shows those remnants turning to dust–including, of course, the steel. Something quite unusual was taking place in New York City. Here you can see it happening before your very eyes–steel and concrete being converted into dust!
While CNN News described it as “smoke”, what you are viewing is the remnant of the core colums of the North Tower turning to dust–which is hardly surprising, since that is happening to the entire building. That is where those millions of cubic yards of very fine dust is coming from. No wonder NIST did not want to release these photos.
And the dust cloud grew . . .
and grew . . .
and grew . . .
enveloping lower Manhattan . . .
and gradually blowing out to sea.
Thermitic primer paint and numerous small nukes to allow complete sublimation of the steel, which turned to dust and cook and pulverize the epoxy based cement. Either a higher temperature or a higher pressure was necessary to get total sublimation of the steel. The necessary conditions are visible in 'phase diagrams' specific for different heats and pressures. These diagrams record the measured heat and pressures for given physical states of the measured material, most dependably, single element materials. Different compounds and alloys also have accompanying phase diagrams to enable one to creatively estimate under what conditions changes of state occur, or in the instance of destroying the WTCs, estimate how much heat and/or pressure was necessary to vaporize>'dustify' structural material and at the same time minimize damage to surrounding persons and properties. Removal of debris from the property with the least effort and cost was considered. Larry Silverstein was there for the results of this discussion as a developer of WTC 7.
A more primitive thermi(a)te material was sprayed on all structural steel of WTC I and II and much of WTC 7 during construction. The presence of huge quantities of unreacted newer 'nanothermate (patented in 1998)' in dust samples taken from all over Manhattan proved more recent demolition materials were used, and as well proved the presence of detonated nuclear fission devices. Nanothermate is ignited by a much cooler temperature of less than 1500 degrees. Nanothermate could have supplied enough heat to cut the WTC cores and activate adjacent ignitors for the older thermi(a)te, if the nanothermate was in sufficient quantity and strategically placed.
Nukes were installed in the subbasements "to create space to accomodate debris from the above structures". Nukes installed in upper floors would have facilitated the process by increasing pressures and temperatures in the WTCs on detonation, as well as physically destroying the site within operational range.
List 'Dick Eisenger' pronounced "Eisenguh".
Wellput. But you are wrong.There have been over 5,000 test nuclear detonations, each one an attempt to discover more about the events and effects of those events in each detonation. A microwave oven is a good demonstration lab to observe the weird of energy weapons. Sacrifice a microwave to stand back and see what a light bulb and a chicken pot pie do at the same time with the oven turned on.
My father was part of the team which procured the engineering bid for Skilling Engineering of Seattle between 1966 and 1968. After a very serious discussion among Skilling personnel at our home concerning the demolition preset which had been added after the steel was up 5 stories, and decided on by the owner/Port Authority/Fed Government, I was ordered to document the preset, including nukes backin 1969-1971, which I did. Then dad removed himself from participation. The preset,including nukes and anti-preset lobbying was documented by 1971. New York City's good people did a successful lobbying effort which halted this 'preload' practice, but not until the WTCs I, II, and 7 and the Chicago Sears(now Willis) tower had been permitted and cleared for the procedure. Yes , the Sears(Willis) tower is still loaded, though maybe the nukes are gone.
All the above is fact and not vulnerable to doubt or second opinion in any way.
Go to '9/11 Illusions, Special Effects, and Other Magic Tricks' to see logical conclusions on the presence of jets, or 'holograms'. Essential to KNOW in order to believe my input is to believe that a thermitic material was sprayed all over the structural steel of WTCs I and II and much of WTC 7 during construction, while small nukes were strategically placed in at least one location per building.
Look into 'barometric bombs' and review the materials listed by 'LC' the commenter to gain understanding of what I post. The steel the impacting jets hit was loaded with thermitic material which was brought to a high enough energy to sublimate the steel on impact( the 'flash' on impact was electrical discharge)is part of the process outlined there at 'veteranstoday.com , 9/11 Illusions, Special Effects,and Other Magic Tricks'. Holograms don't bash holes and rip out expanses of joisted floors. The walls sublimated into dust as the jets passed in. BEWARE of phonied up and altered videos which may leave you with the incorrect conclusions, like with all of us at least once. Fraud and videos is risky business.
I, personally,watched a 1988 vintage UFO projector/simulator over mid-town Seattle in 1988. Straight above my house. It never made the newspapers. My high school buddy in Seattle made it big in the Boeing/U.S.A.F. arena and convinced me a week later the UFOs were them pushing the upcoming 'Star Trek' convention. We even got drunk and toured the Seattle Boeing plant at 2AM. Damn weird.
Another friend, with years in U.S.Navy Electronics, demonstrated how easy it was to make an EMP generator and blow out all the CFRtv sets in your apartment building. Cool! It worked. I did not want to know how to build such a thing then but NOW the U.S.A. needs their CFRtvs disabled more than any time in history.
These tools exist. This is NOT grandpa's world anymore. Study HAARP to watch the NWO genetic slag destroying America while the sheeple just bleet like the pros. Dr. Fetzer is doing just fine except for his temporary evaluation of the the jets at the WTCs. He may have seen a real 3-D jet cruising hologram. I have not, but acknowledge that theoretically,COULD BE. The 1988 vintage UFO orange 2-D ovals were BIZARRE. No blimp. No screen. 3,000 feet straight up. Dancing around. Not making holes in anything. Cruising and dancing.
This is pretty bizarre. For those who want to learn more about directed energy weapons, the existence of which is not in doubt, search for DEPS, the Directed Energy Professional Society. When I was completing my book on the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone with Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, I found the society was holding its eight annual meeting in Honolulu–and that was in 2004!
And, yes, I was impressed during that first interview with Judy Wood, which took place on 11 November 2006! I had become disillusioned with Steve's preoccupation with nanothermite, which, I was convinced, could not have done the feats he was attributing to it (of pulverizing the concrete and decimating the steel). I have been proven to be correct.
See "Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 research community?"
and "Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?", both of which I wrote with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, which demonstrates that nanothermite cannot have pulverized the concrete or decimated the steel, where Steve and his gang were barking up the wrong tree.
It was my loss of faith in nanothermite and my willingness to consider alternative theories that led to the split. I had advised Steve that for his journal to be a success, he needed a first-rate editorial board. But he settled for friends and buddies, which is why, although it has published some respectable articles, it has never assumed the prominence that it would have with a higher-quality editorial board.
As a philosopher, I have published on the nature of information and of disinformation. The most interesting discussion of this issue may be found in "The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer", where I explain that Kevin Ryan knows no more about me and my research than he does about "explosive nanothermite". Among his blunders, he completely misunderstands a dispute with another philosopher over the meaning of the word "information"!
This post is typical of someone who is attempting to promote rubbish about 9/11, where their numbers are legion. Notice that he is even out to resuscitate the theory that the Twin Towers "collapsed"! I cannot imagine a more stunning way to expose a piece of disinformation as a fraud on the public, where it is refuted in the article about which this fraudulent posts has been advanced as a commentary.
So there were no passengers on Flights 11 and 77, who were made up. The other planes did not crash on 9/11, so the casualty lists for them appear to have been faked, too.
Flight 93 may have landed in Cleveland under tight security. Its passengers may have been killed. Photos of alleged victims were at one time on the internet, until it was observed that they were all intact bodies, which could not have died from violet plane crashes.
The one who had done the most on this question is Dean Hartwill, who authored PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS. Go to http://www.911vancouverhearings.com and check out the presentation that is linked to his title for more about all this.
Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day. And FAA data shows that the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005. So how could planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11 and how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?
Pilots has now discovered that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had "crashed" in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was also in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had "hit" the South Tower. For more on all of this,
Part 1
http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
Part 2
http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
Meet the Masters of Disinfoland
The "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" group has a history that casual observers might not realize. Originally formed to legitimize the study of September 11th anomalies (or was it?) by PhD's and other academics in the related fields, the organization was of course vulnerable to infiltration.
James H. Fetzer PhD. "wrote the book" on disinformation [6]. In Fetzer's study of the ways of twisting the truth and delegitimizing your opponent, he revealed many of the disengenuous techniques that he himself later used against his fellow scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement [7].
Fetzer's control of the Scholars group/website led to its eventual breakup. The "Scholars" website suddenly started entertaining nonsense theories, under the guise of legitimate scientific inquiry. The group imploded in December 2006 with the promotion of the "directed energy beam" hypothesis by Judy Wood PhD., and the subsequent retirement of Dr. Steven Jones PhD. from the group.
Steven Jones went on to start up a second group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth AND JUSTICE. Jones smartly retained editorial control of the Journal of 9/11 Studies (much to Fetzer's dismay) which publishes related papers.
The "directed energy weapons" garbage was at the root of most of this controversy.
Fetzer:
"I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry, that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center." -James Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, December 2006
Add to that an attempt to legitimize the "no planes" claptrap:
"I am inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration." -James Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, December 2006 [8]
The "directed energy weapons" is the second most idiotic "theory" I've heard yet. It takes more time and effort to properly debunk[9], and its proponents couch it in pseudo-scientific jargon in order to fool the average reader. It's still nonsense and demonstrably so.
From their own mouths, this "theory" is rendered laugh out loud clownish:
Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”
Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”
Fetzer: “Planes?”
Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”
Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.” [10]
"Huge" as in the big lie principle. A simple viewing of the towers collapsing shows that a beam from orbit has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The tops of the buildings do not "disintegrate" into "dustified steel" as a first step. The collapses begin near the plane impact zones. Having a directed beam from above cut away all the supporting columns horizontally inside the building, floor by floor, is not remotely feasible, even if Darth Vader himself was at the controls. This theory is so bad, so on its face bullshit, that it's incredible so many people have fallen for it.
Who knows? Are you saying an airliner must have hit the Pentagon because we cannot account for the passengers?
What happened to the passengers of the planes that did not hit the towers or the Pentagon?
Fascinating conversation. I appreciate everyone's dedication and am overwhelmed by the complexities. Though I'm confused (who really isn't?) about various aspects of the who and how's, one thing I'd like to look into is the media coverage before, during, and after the event.
For example, I don't even remember any talk of a hurricane off the coast of NYC until I watched Dr. Judy Wood's interview. I do recall seeing a video where a newscaster (BBC?) speaks of WTC 7 collapsing while this building was still visible in the background. etc. etc.
I'm mostly interested in a detailed analysis of all live coverage, which upon re-broadcasting, was never used again. The kind of stuff which couldn't escape being shown/spoken on live TV (once) but which, for some reason was deemed too dangerous to show again…with the hope that 99% of us would forget what we'd seen the first time. And being in a state of shock is probably a good way to lose track of such details.
Can anyone point me to a good video/article which specifically deals with media coverage, differentiating between the "shown once only" vs. the stuff that was repeated multiple times, with the supposed aim to drive home the official message?
Thanks,
Joel
WV
is it really possible for height like WTC to go down proportional when hit at the side? i thought it should go down leaning to the side.
Smith | support hose
To those saying that there were nuclear bombs at the base of the building, therefore causing the earth to shake, are completely wrong. Don't you think if there were nuclear bombs planted anywhere near the base of the towers, that the base of the structures would not be in tact still. As opposed to the upper part of the buildings that were pretty much demolished from impact, fire, collapse, etc. ? If you have done your research, you would know that according to the bulding codes of 1968 in New York City, it did not require as much fireproofing in the buldings as it did back when the Empire State Buklding was completed in 1931. Back when they used masonry to fireproof building in New York. The fireproofing they did use was in small amounts and was that spray-on stuff. When the plane collided with the buldings, it blew off whatever fireproofing was intact. Ignited jet fuel did soften the columns and did cause the buildings to basically "implode". If there were bombs set, we would've seen more explosions. I know the govt aint perfect, but look into the facts before you start spreading more controversy. Thank you.
People who lump the lie of 9/11 in with the reality of the Moon landings just do not have any sense of proportion, not having been born till way after, reading about them from BS artists who deny it, and who easily fool the too-young. A round trip from here to the Moon and back really is just not that difficult. Just titanically expensive. And the "criticism" of shadows and "wind" is really just so half-baked. ALL easily explained. It actually happened, folks, 6 times.
What amazes me about 9/11 are the otherwise-solid researchers who also have some bullshit ax to grind, by claiming the government was NOT involved. Just an innocent bystander, coincidentally keeping all air defense out of the way for 1 hr 51 mins. About as dumb, really, as the Moon landing deniers are pathetic.
Can you add my FOIA strange small jet photo at the WTC on 9/11?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6LmJZbvOjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maDF_1WyZuE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivEN35NwMs
Jim Fetzer and Will of http://www.tnsradio.com are doing a live broadcast on 911 and the JFK murder on Wendesnday 27th October 2010 at 4pm Eastern time
Here is the rest of the commentary from a chemical engineer. Part II.
I have read the nanothermite technical paper, and it seems like a solid technical paper to me. But it just implicates thermite as having been found at the scene of the crime. It does not explain how much thermite was used, how it was applied, and how it could account for the massive amounts of dust as well as molten iron in the subfloors. If nanothermite can function as a detonating explosive capable of creating all that dust, that thermite would not have produced molten iron in the subfloors, because the iron would have been dispersed in the dust and would have solidified as its small particles cooled in the air. So does this mean that there was other thermite that functioned as an incendiary to cut the columns and leave massive amounts of molten iron? But then what about those massive explosions that we can hear before the "collapse" of the buildings on the Rick Siegel video? Were those also thermite explosions?
I think that people of good will should be able to debate these issues without calling each other disinfo agents. (Am I exposing myself as a disinfo agent by saying this?)
I also think that it is much more important to unite and focus on the "who did 911" rather than fight amongst ourselves over the "how it was done." But the "how" should not be entirely neglected. I appreciate that there are those who are dedicating themselves to this.
One last comment about Fetzer that popped into my mind. I really appreciated the debate he did on the subject of 911 with Michael Shermer. I thought he presented the arguments very well and won the debate. Many years ago I had read some of Shermer's books as I was going through my period of skepticism, and was a fan of his, so I was disappointed when I learned the position he was taking on 911. But I even appreciate Michael Shermer for his willingness to debate Jim Fetzer, because how else, if not through debate are people going to be able to think things through and make up their own minds.
To all our searching for truth,
Mark
T Mark Hightower
San Jose, CA
This has been posted on another thread, but it comes from a chemical engineer, so I'm posting it here as well (in two parts). Here's Part I:
Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:19:50 -0700 [02:19:50 AM CDT]
To all,
Back around Christmas 2007 I purchased the DVD set for the 2007 conference, The Science and Politics of 911, What's controversial and what's not and watched all 14 hours of it. See description below.
The full August 2007 Madison, Wisconsin conference on DVD (14 hours, 2-disk set). Professor James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, presents the most provocative research in the 9/11 movement. Subtitled "What's Controversial, What's Not?", here's your chance to review the most hotly debated 9/11 theories and evidence, delivered by the researchers themselves. Featuring Dr.s Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Bob Fitrakis and Doug Rokke; authors Jim Marrs, Morgan Reynolds and Barbara Honneger; and geoscience/space experts Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre, among others.
This video is still advertised for sale at
http://www.avatarproducts.com
I also watched at least two of the no planer videos, September Clues and 911 Octopus, I believe it was called.
I came away from this with a respect for the case that the proponents make for both the no planes theory and the directed energy weapons theory.
I was sad to see the breakup of Scholars for 911 truth, but after watching this 14 hour DVD set I chose to join Fetzer's group just to take a stand for the side of the fence that is more in line with my inclination towards free and open thinking and research.
Since I am an engineer I also chose to join Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, even though they have a very narrow focus.
How many of the people who I am "replying all" to on this email have watched all of these videos that I have watched? If you have, and you think the case that they make has been soundly refuted, then please refer me to the best articles that refute them so I can get the other side.
I will admit that getting someone new to entertain the no planes theory or the directed energy weapons theory is a much harder sell than the seemingly more conventional thermite theory. It is kind of like trying to convince someone that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a prerequisite for understanding that 911 was an inside job.
When I look at the videos of the live TV broadcasts of 911 I see what appears to be pretty obvious evidence of some monkey business with regards to the footage that was being shown, even covering up parts of the videos upon playback. Why would they do this if they did not have something to hide.
Also, the physics shown in the videos of the planes entering the buildings does not look right to me. You have the low density and more fragile object achieving victory over the much higher density and stronger object upon their coming together in collision. How would it have looked different if the properties of the two objects were reversed? The plane being dense and strong and the building being light and fragile. It would have looked the same as what we saw in the videos. Therefore the authenticity of these videos is suspect in my view.
Lest anyone draw the wrong inference, I did not give Steve the boot. He resigned. I was not unhappy with his research on thermite but with his lack of willingness to consider alternatives with the potential to explain the phenomenon. He is still using the word "collapse" when the towers clearly did not collapse. Here's another useful source:
"Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition"
http://www.infowars.com/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition/
I have always been a "bit tent" guy who encourages research on alternative possibilities, such as mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids. Even Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show on 9/11 used (nano-)thermite(?) on a steel beam and was unable to cut through it in the time available, which seemed to be more than 10 secs. Here is some of what we have to explain:
"9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Destruction"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-of-death-and.html
With respect to my own efforts to sort all this out, I have a piece that explains my reasoning in moving toward unconventional explanations for the phenomena. I would think that anyone who studied the photographic sequence here would understand that there is no conventional explanation for what happened to the towers or to the WTC entire:
"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
http://911scholars.ning.com, enter the title
Steve and I had a parting of the ways in December 2006 because I had become convinced that thermite/thermate/super-thermite cannot be the whole story (in converting two 500,000-ton buildings into very fine dust). I have discussed my differences with him in "The Science of 9/11" section on the home page of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, http://911scholars.org. I would especially recommend the transcript of my discussion of his work under the title, "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community", where I consider his latest paper. It can be found at http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf
In response to Tom, some of these photos–possibly all of them–had been available previously, but they were hyped as "newly released":
"New aerial NYPD photos of 9/11 attack released today"
By Ula Ilnytsky and Colleen Long (February 10, 2010)
http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1587879357/New-aerial-NYPD-photos-of-9-11-attack-released-today
They apparently were released as the result of a FOIA request, but there may have been a psy-op aspect to this. I thought it was an opportunity to better inform the public about what actually happened on 9/11, so I resequenced them in order to present the story more coherently here.
Please follow the links below to find detailed reports on thermite explosives.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15285013/2009-Active-Thermitic-Material-Discovered-in-Dust-from-the-911-WTC-Catastrophe-
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Google "The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects"
Box cutters my butt…looks like Directed Energy to me….
9/11 was an Inside Job
Quoting "Thomas Potter" :
Jim-
The claim that ABC News made about these photos being unreleased and recently obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology through the Freedom of Information Act are bogus.
On 09/13/2007 Ronald J. Burch, New York State Museum Curator of Art and Architecture, posted a presentation entitled "Military Photos of the Twin Towers" which contained these "unreleased photos". But then, what else would you expect from a fascist state posing as a democracy?
Tom
PS- Incidentally, the second to the last photo in Mr. Burch's presentation is labeled incorrectly. It was photographed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the data was used by the U.S. Army Joint Precision Strike Demonstration.
New 9/11 Photos Released
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
Chilling Aerial Photos of 9/11 Attack Released
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9796098
Military Photos of the Twin Towers
http://www.scribd.com/doc/282415/Military-photos-of-the-Twin-Towers
Ronald J. Burch
Curator of Art and Architecture
New York State Museum
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/staff/details.cfm?staffID=16
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm
9/11 First Responders Dying of Cancer …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5S8UuB3fcM
Google "9/11 Nukes – Radiation-induced cancers"
The explosions in the subbasements occurred as much as 14-17 seconds before the reverberations from the alleged plane strikes. See Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", for example, at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html
On indications of Israeli complicity in the events of 9/11, see, for example, "9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" and "Is 9/11 Research 'anti-Semitic'?" OpEdNews, as well as documents and links provided by sites like http://ReDiscover911.com and http://whodidit.org.
New photos released–or time to restimulate in the traumatized minds of sheeple the psy-ops mythology of 19 Islamics on the eve of invasion and occupation of Iran and diffuse the AE911truth press conference announcing the 1000th member?
Silverstein, Hauer, Wolfowitz, Bill, Kristol, Zelikow, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, ODIGO, COMVERSE, ICTS, Dancing Israelis–how many Israeli connections does it take to realize the Israel framed the Muslim world in this "false flags" attack? Israel–not Muslims–did 9/11 along with traitors within the US which we might name Kosher Nostra or Zioncons.
At least we have a name for the criminal element of Italians–the Mafia. We've been conditioned not to criticize or scrutinize criminal behavior by Israelis–lest the "anti-Semitic trick" be played.
ReDiscover911.com and whodidit.org
It is time for grand juries–investigations are more than sufficient for indictments.
Columbia University: See Seismological anamoly PRIOR to and immediately during the "collapse" sequence. Seismological evidence proves ground shock well BELOW surface and PRIOR to "Collapse".
Seek the science… Conservation of momentum "freefall" speeds physically can not account for mass being overtly "in the way" for 110 stories successively(Pancake Excuse Theory)and provide for sustaining gravitational freefall speeds thus sustaining the acceleration of mass (consistently) to the ground. If this were a rare physical anomolly, granted (building #1 gets a "a pass"). However, this occured 2 times identically and the anomoly that requires "Protection" from accusation of internal energy as evidenced, producing this effect CANNOT stand. Pulverizing of concrete into microscopic dust has to have been exposed to incredibly high explosive energy. Both the buildings' steel spires were additionally found to be at 36 foot lengths, identical to the flat bed legnths that would conveiniently carry them away.
This is science and forensically established fact. No second gunmen about this one.
Seek Science — get results… Demand truth. 9 years later, THIS IS the smoking gun behind all of the worlds' troubles of today… Except for the one or two thousand "Extra-Privileged" who profitted and continue to benefit from this tragedy.
Is this our heritage's legacy? Our Swansong?
What would Thomas Jefferson do or say?
GOD SPEED IN TRUTH FOR US ALL PLEASE.
David is not the only one to raise the possibility that mini-nukes might have been involved, http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2009/07/35-reasons-for-many-small-fission-nukes.html. But my own research undermines at least some of the reasons he offers. See "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories" for further discussion of these issues, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html.
In response to Cale, I think that most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. This post is not about any other issue than the destruction of the Twin Towers and, in this case, the North Tower specifically. So why mention them?
Another link to "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" goes directly to it, http://religionandmorality.net/links/An%20Analysis%20of%20the%20WTC%20on%209_11.pdf for those who find that easier to access.
How it was done has become the $64 question about events in New York City. I have outlined my reasoning for inferring that the destruction of the Twin Towers appears to have been done using some very sophisticated unconventional methods, unlike the case of WTC-7, which was clearly a classic controlled demolition from the bottom up.
On WTC-7, see, for example, "This is an Orange" and many other videos found on YouTube, including an interview with Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, by doing a copy-and-past of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
My "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11" can be downloaded from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum by going to http://911scholars.ning.com and entering in the search window, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11".
So, what's the explanation for the whole building turning to dust?
Rhene Kiyu Baaz
When I first saw George Bush address the nation for the first time, after the attacks, and noticed he kept smirking (4 or 5 times) (soon to be known as "smirking chimp), and then when I saw the videos of him sitting in that classroom, when security adviser Andrew Card infamously whispered into his ear, "Sir. A second plane has struck the other twin tower. America is under attack!". And then to see Bush sit back in his chair and just sit there for another 20 minutes. Those 2 things were my aha moments when I knew something was up. This guy looks guilty as hell! Then gradually I went from, he let it happen, to , he made it happen (the shadow govt.). Then, once my denial was gone about 911, it went away for Timothy McVeigh and the OK City bombing…
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war l…Walking on the moon…All lies. All propaganda. All BS.
One of the reasons many people have a hard time accepting the possibility of this is because they are simultaneously expected to accept so many other concepts which to them seem very far-fetched. If you want people to see the truth of 9/11, don't hurl moon-landing JFK Templars pyramids and reptilian aliens in their face at the same time.
The towers "collapsed" just as much as the US landed on the moon…. LIES!!! Its so funny how our Govt makes up lies that defy the laws of science, physics, and umm… common sense. And whats even sadder is there are millions of Americans STUPID ENOUGH to just accept these lies as truths rather than do 20-30 mins. of research MAX on either of these completely ridiculous and IMPOSSIBLE feats to see they can't possibly occur. America…QUIT BEING SO LAZY, GULLABLE, AND STUPID!!!
Google "Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC"