Giuliani knew twin towers would collapse, firefighters not warned


By Craig McKee

Truth and perception can be polar opposites.

Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York City in 2001, was hailed by many as a 9/11 hero who guided the city and the nation through its most horrifying day. But, instead of being hailed as a hero for his actions on and after 9/11, he could have been seen as untruthful and suspiciously evasive. He was certainly unconcerned about the dangers to residents and employees who spent time at Ground Zero in the weeks that followed.

Giuliani said in 2001 that he had been told the twin towers would collapse on the morning of 9/11. If that’s true, why didn’t he warn the firefighters who were climbing the two towers to get people out? And why did he change his story six years later?

According to an interview he did with Peter Jennings of ABC News at 1 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Giuliani said he had been told by officials in his own Office of Emergency Management that the twin towers of the World Trade Center were in danger of imminent collapse.

But how could he or anyone from the OEM know this? There was no precedent for a steel-framed building collapsing due to fire. And the impact of airliners, by the government’s own admission, did not bring the towers down.

Giuliani told Jennings:

“We were operating out of there (75 Barclay Street, where they had set up temporary headquarters) when we heard that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse. And it did collapse before we were able to get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out.”

This comment left Giuliani with a problem. How could he explain where this information came from? Incredibly the 9/11 Commission didn’t address this critical issue, and no journalist followed up by asking him about it in the years that followed. It took two 9/11 Truth activists with a video camera to get him to clarify his statement in 2007.

Giuliani’s new version:

“I didn’t realize the towers would collapse….Our understanding was that over a long period of time, the way other buildings collapsed, the towers could collapse, meaning over a 7, 8, 9, 10-hour period. No one that I knew of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise.”

Nice try. These two statements are completely incompatible. The second is less a clarification than it is a retreat from his earlier position, and it doesn’t hold up for several reasons. One, no high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire over a 7, 8, 9, 10-hour period – or any other period. It had simply never happened. There are many examples of massive infernos that burned for a dozen or more hours with no collapse.

In chapter 22 of his book 9/11 Contradictions, David Ray Griffin chronicles a number of major fires that were much worse than the ones that occurred in the WTC that day that did not lead to collapse. He also quotes a number of key officials on the scene on 9/11 who stated that they had no idea there was any chance of the buildings collapsing.

This was even confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, which stated in its report that none of the fire chiefs present that day believed the complete collapse of either tower was possible. Even the report on the collapses by the National Institute of Standards and Technology – which supports the official story – states that the collapse was completely unexpected.

Nevertheless, Giuliani wasn’t the only person who apparently got this advance warning from someone with the OEM that the buildings were in danger of collapse. In his book, Griffin shows how the word of the potential collapse had originated with Richard Rotanz, the deputy director of the OEM. Accounts to this effect were confirmed by Emergency Management Services (EMS) division chief John Peruggia, who said he spoke to Rotanz and a representative from the Department of Buildings. Peruggia said:

“The information that we got at that time was that they felt both buildings had been severely damaged, but they felt that the North Tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse.”

So how was this determined considering that no one else on the ground had any idea it would happen? And if they knew something this important, why didn’t that information get relayed to the Fire Department? Firefighters were still climbing in the building when the South Tower “imploded” as Giuliani said. A total of 343 firefighters died that day, along with 23 police officers. Isn’t the use of the word “imploded” interesting as well?

The OEM had a command centre on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7, although it was never used to co-ordinate the response to the events of that day. This was odd since the multi-million dollar command centre had been built just for such an occasion. It had bomb-resistant glass as well as its own power and air supply. Instead, the building was evacuated shortly after the first tower was hit at 8:46 a.m.

The first director of the OEM, Jerome Hauer, had recommended originally that the command centre be built in Brooklyn, but it was Giuliani who insisted it be built at the World Trade Center. The centre was destroyed when Building 7 inexplicably collapsed into its own footprint in just 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. There is no credible evidence to show that something other than explosives could have brought down the building – which was not hit by a plane.

It’s not clear why Giuliani felt that Building 7 was in danger when the Barclay Street location wasn’t. The two were just a few hundred feet apart.

These aren’t the only questions about Giuliani from that day. He has come under considerable – and justifiable – criticism for not doing anything to ensure that first responders had the right radio equipment to communicate effectively. The same problem had surfaced after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and nothing had been done in the eight intervening years.

And, unforgivably, Giuliani assured rescue and clean-up workers that the air around Ground Zero was safe to breathe. It wasn’t, and there’s plenty of evidence now that he and the EPA knew it wasn’t. Where was his leadership as hundreds of volunteers and rescue workers were breathing in toxic air in the weeks after the disaster? He also made claims that he spent as much time at the site as the workers themselves, infuriating workers and their families. Many have since died as a result of their exposure.

For many in New York City, in America, and around the world, Rudy Giuliani was the quintessential leader on 9/11. He took command and led people through the most traumatic day in American history since Pearl Harbor. At least that’s the way he’d like it to be worded. Others believe he got a free ride, and that he was not looking out for anyone’s safety that day – except maybe his own.

The former mayor has self-servingly cited 9/11 hundreds of times since 2001 in speeches and interviews, seemingly to anyone who would listen. Yes, his name and 9/11 are stuck together like paper and glue.

And I think they should be.

33 thoughts on “Giuliani knew twin towers would collapse, firefighters not warned

  1. Here are more people who knew or strongly suspected that the towers would eventually collapse:

    http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande

    Here are a whole lot of eyewitnesses who thought that WTC 7 would collapse:

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

    Did I just discover the mother lode of 9/11 conspirators, Craig?

  2. Dear Mr. Albury,

    The towers were standing solid after the (supposed) commercial jet impacts. The historical precedence of what office fires could accomplish on steel buildings would have dictated the measures taken by the first firemen on the scene. Unless they were privy to conspiratorial information, few of the FDNY would have predicted one, let alone three, skyscrapers being demolished into fine powder by very short-lived office fires (along with holes being bored into WTC-5 and craters created in WTC-6).

    All bets were off once the first tower was demolished.

    I’m sure all surviving FDNY from the first demolition re-evaluated their assessment into the realm of “we don’t know what is going on or what to expect.” Two planes hitting the towers was bad enough, and they may or may not have known about a third hitting the Pentagon. But their personal observations from the demise of WTC-2 would have had them say “clear the hell out of WTC-1, because we don’t know what we’re dealing with.”

    When WTC-1 was demolished in a spectacular made-for-telly fashion, this would have tempered whatever efforts the FDNY would apply to WTC-7, particularly in the knowledge of personnel already killed and equipment destroyed from both towers’ demolition.

    The questions are: Who knew or strongly suspected that 3 steel skyscrapers would eventually collapse? When did they suspect it (before or after WTC-2 fell)? And based on what information?

    Anyone suspecting that any of the 3 skyscrapers would fall before any of them actually did (aka Giuliani) implies foreknowledge. Why wasn’t Giuliani in WTC-7, where the emergency command center was? Why was WTC-7 evacuated? Why were fires in WTC-7 before either tower came down?

    • You make an excellent point. After two buildings have already collapsed improbably, why not suspect it could happen a third time? And I agree that the evacuation of WTC 7 is a glaringly unanswered question. According to Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, the building was empty shortly after the first tower was “hit.” And they reported massive explosions in the lower floors before either tower came down. It’s so obvious that WTC 7’s fate was sealed before either tower suffered any damage.

    • The links above answer most of your questions, Senor. Did you bother to read any of them? Giuliani wasn’t the only eyewitness with “foreknowledge”; I posted the names of dozens of others who observed the towers or WTC 7 prior to their collapses and expressed concern that they would eventually come down. The FDNY set up a safety perimeter more than 600′ away from WTC 7 several hours before it fell, and monitored its movement with a transit or total station. Do most controlled demolitions involve hours of slow movement of the upper parts of a building, and were the FDNY in on the plot too?

    • And why a lot more things as well —

      For example:
      Why is it that we seem to accept that the former NYC Mayor was told to get out of his office building, the WTC7, because the towers were gonna fall, and before he could get outside one of the towers did fall. The first one.

      So if I understand this right, up to that point in time — no building at the WTC had done much of anything other than get a jet or two stuck in them, up high, but not the WTC7, no plane there. No towers had yet fallen BUT someone told the mayor to get out fast because it was gonna happen soon, and it did. Yes we know that about him, even though he has changed his story a bit since, but were not so clear as to who it was that told him this important life-saving information

      Whoever that is, considering what was being foretold as was then coming, had never happened in history; and yet it was being stated that morning, and by a person who must have had the background-clout to make even the major jump.

      I find that person even more interesting and questionable than even a dim-witted major who seemed to be enjoying his ride of insider shared favoritism.

      The guy that told him those things // Well here’s something I read about that a few years ago but haven’t heard mention of it since. I came across this in a news article right around the same time I found myself waking to the truth of the lies of 9/11.

      Steel-reinforced high rise buildings had never before in history collapsed as a result of fire. I hadn’t known that, not until I read it. I believe it because of the sources of the information and having seen other such steel-reinforced his rise buildings on fire, much hotter in many ways, and longer in duration, and they didn’t fall down.

      As I was saying, a couple of years ago I read about this fellow giving an interview two months after 9/11 that claimed he was watching television that morning and seeing the NYC attacks unfold claimed to have had a realization, something in the form of a nanosecond, and turning to his brother Doug, announced that those towers were gonna fall and in which order they would do so. And he was right, in both, coming about in the same nanosecond of time. Wow.

      Now talk about a lucky guess! Or was it that. And shouldn’t it have been something else entirely to have known or believed due to his experience and vast knowledge of the subject?

      I’m reading about this fellow who basically either telling it like it was, bragging a bit perhaps, but nevertheless stating himself clearly to a journalist who would, in turn, put his interview down in print in the New Yorker — this guy was claiming to have known ‘in a nanosecond’ something that had never happened before in his expert vast knowledge and experience, yet alone was gonna happen twice, and in which order.

      Now that takes some super intelligent smarts to be able to perdict ‘the future’ with that kind of accuracy, considering.

      I learned that the guy doing the ‘bragging’ was a Mr. Mark Lozieux, the owner, and son of the founder, of Controlled Demolitions, Inc.

      The more I read, the more I learned that a controlled demolition takes much research and much planning and an over all extensive preparation to bring down a steel-reinforced high rise; more research and planning, I would think, than can be understood in a nanosecond of time even by a true expert who had never seen such an event in his entire life nor knew of one in history. Much more, days more, weeks, months, longer.

      And yet here this guy who truly knowns his business, perhaps better than most everyone else, and what it involves, is telling a journalist, and us in essence, that he knew something that history didn’t — and even his line of work didn’t if we are to fully grasp what a controlled demolition involves.

      Well, I find that very suspect, and unsettling, that a person who knows so much on a subject knows basically the same as I do. I would be probably one of the first to suggest a building might fall down, or fall over, if it were ever wounded by a jet passenger plane — But I can that because I don’t know. I truly dont, but that’s no excuse because he does, he understands the science of it all.

      He went on in the article to say (within that nanosecond reasoning) he attempted to contact the mayor in NYC, to tell them to getr out of the buildings because they were coming down, but failed in his good intentioned, gallant effort due to telephone overload; he sadly just wasn’t able to get his urgent message relayed.

      Really? Or I say — Would knowing the same otherwise to be a dot to be connected in the overall happening of who knew what regarding 9/11?

      I wonder if that tid-bit about telephone overload might not be a bit less than honest especially since ‘someone?’ (was it truly Mark Lozioux?) really did get the word out (to get out) if we are to believe what the mayor said that morning.

      I believe him in that regard. Not much else but in that case, yes.

      I seem to recall that same nanosecond-awareness-part being mentioned in two interviews with separate journalist and separate news sources a few weeks apart EXCEPT the attempt to notify the mayor-part didn’t make it into the second interview.

      Left me wondering why that was? And if this was the guy who should have known better, but who didn’t, but who did anyway based upon what he said, if he was the guy that caused the mayor to get out.

      $.02

  3. re: http://www.nyccan.org/ and http://buildingwhat.org/

    To Whom it May Concern:

    If you need to mount a campaign to inform NYC council members and others of the fact that WTC 7 collapsed almost 7 hours after the North Tower came down on 9/11, then what was the reason for its alleged controlled demolition in the first place? Did the US government need an additional building collapse that day that took no lives, well after both towers, WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6, four airliners, and part of the Pentagon had already been destroyed or badly damaged, and nearly 3000 innocent people had been violently murdered, to get its almost unanimous congressional resolution to go to war in Afghanistan where al Qaeda was headquartered and where President Clinton sent Tomahawk missiles in response to their previous coordinated and deadly suicide operations against two US embassies in Africa in 1998?

    How on earth do you “bring justice” to Mr. McIlvaine’s remarkable and beloved son Robert G. by libeling more than 210 NIST experts, Larry Silverstein, and countless others with absurd claims based on junk science by profiteering charlatans like Richard Gage and his “engineers,” and by harassing NYC council members for a new investigation when you obviously haven’t even bothered to read NCSTAR 1A, which is the product of a thorough and very competent investigation by people with real science and engineering credentials? Why do you urge people to “ask OFFICIALS to investigate Building 7,” when at least 125 of the scientists and engineers involved in the NIST investigation of WTC 7 were CIVILIANS from academia and private industry?

    Robert wasn’t even in WTC 7 when Muhammad Atta flew the hijacked Boeing 767 into WTC 1 ten stories below him on the morning of 9/11/01, and when he was suddenly and unexpectedly doomed to death along with everyone else in his group and everyone above the 92nd floor, nearly nine hours before the late afternoon collapse of WTC 7. The FDNY feared that it would eventually collapse, which is why they abandoned any effort to fight the fires and pulled everyone back a safe distance, preventing more “terrible loss of life,” as WTC 7’s owner later related in a PBS interview.

    Robert’s death was a tragic loss, and my profound sympathy for Mr. McIlvaine is hard to put into words, but I’d like you and anyone else who’s thinking of signing your petition to answer the following questions first, since you’ve fallen prey to the manipulative liars of the 9/11 “truth movement” and think Larry Silverstein destroyed his own property or knew about it:

    -Why would Larry Silverstein have publicly admitted even to knowing that there were planted explosives in WTC 7 in the first place?
    -What was Silverstein Properties’ and the FDNY’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for nine years and counting, spending ~$700 million, or most of the $861 million insurance settlement, on the replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?
    (note: it was built in 1986-1987, at least 15 years after asbestos was written out of all building codes, and it had no asbestos in its SFRM or elsewhere. There was some on the first 38 floors of the North Tower, most of which had been abated during various tenant fit-outs well before he won the lease by default when Vornado’s deal with the PA fell though, but none in the South Tower, which was built after the code change went into effect)

    -Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime instead of the $4.68 BILLION total he received if he publicly admitted to foreknowledge of or complicity in the alleged secret demolition of his property, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich (2 of them), and London? They all contested his claim of two occurrences based on two separate plane crashes, and he won in court in a few instances based on individual contract wording, but there was never any question relating to the causes of any WTC collapse.

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

    -If the explosives were pre-planted, which would have taken weeks or even months in a vacant building and have been completely impossible to do secretly in an occupied one, and Barry Jennings heard some of them go off around 10 AM, why was there any discussion at all in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish WTC 7 with the other apparently fireproof explosives allegedly planted a few stories higher?

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

    -Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends, or any other evidence in the debris?

    -Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?

    -Is the FDNY in the controlled demolition business? What other buildings, on fire or not, have they demolished before or since 9/11?

    -Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” or “pull it” to refer to building demolition using explosives, not one in which cables are used to pull an already damaged building over, as was done with WTC 6.

    -How does a “terrible loss of life” in the WTC towers affect a later decision to demolish a nearby building with no one in it?

    -A number of FDNY personnel were inside WTC 7 prior to the pullback order, presumably at risk from the alleged explosives, and most of the 343 FDNY fatalities resulted from the tower collapses, so why are there only a few FDNY in the 9/11 “truth movement”? You can count the number in this “truth” organization right here: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469 Are they simply not as astute as you are, or don’t they care what killed so many of their colleagues?

    -There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long ~45′ girder and ~52′ beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a 200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it very likely destroyed it completely. Do you know whether ConEd’s insurers just absorbed the loss of tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage and restoration and then subrogated Industrial Risk Insurers, since Larry Silverstein’s firm was still the responsible party, especially if he deliberately caused the damage?

    You are not honoring the memory of Mr. McIlvaine’s highly successful and accomplished young son or any of the other victims of the 9/11 al Qaeda attacks on the WTC towers by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the events that occurred that day, and by falsely implicating people who were totally uninvolved in the planning or execution of the Planes Operation, as 9/11 was known to the al Qaeda terrorists behind it.

    Sincere best wishes,

    Albury

  4. Dear Mr. Albury,

    You appear to be all over the map in your last posting. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, overwhelm them quantity, eh?

    Loved your question with half truths:

    Did the US government need an additional building collapse that day that took no lives, well after both towers, WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6, four airliners, and part of the Pentagon had already been destroyed or badly damaged, and nearly 3000 innocent people had been violently murdered, to get its almost unanimous congressional resolution to go to war in Afghanistan where al Qaeda was headquartered and where President Clinton sent Tomahawk missiles in response to their previous coordinated and deadly suicide operations against two US embassies in Africa in 1998?

    The short answer is: yes.

    As was indicated by Jennings and Hess, WTC-7 was evacuated just after the towers were both hit and it experienced explosions before either tower were demolished. I believe that WTC-7 was supposed to be destroyed at the same time as the towers, but it had snafu’s and fizzles that took time to be rectified. If Jennings and Hess had problems getting out, imagine the problems with getting back in with explosives without the FDNY & others noticing. Oh snap! That’s right. The FDNY were pulled rather early (11 AM or so) out of fear. (Lack of water and non-working sprinklers weren’t an issue, because pumper boats by this time were at the docks.)

    Follow the money, as they say. The WTC-7 housed among other things SEC records like for the many SEC investigations against influential financial backers of both Bush presidents. Aside from putting Bush I records under the umbrella of Bush II to prevent them from entering the public domain early, the elimination of these SEC records along with the ONI investigators & records in the Pentagon — the only occupants who moved into the newly renovated wing — put a big kabash on investigations into Bush I financial misdeeds that were coming due. Further, with the SEC crippled and the perceived shock to Wall Street, many trading restrictions were relaxed that allowed billions in financial transactions to be laundered slicker than anything Lichtenstein could offer.

    Mr. Albury, because you have set a precedence in previous postings of being a tad bit too accepting and fawning of govt positions, your question deserves further parsing.

    “nearly 3000 innocent people had been violently murdered”

    This number goes down every day. Can you say, simVictim? Its first major reduction stems from the passengers of the four aircraft, that you can’t even prove took off or were flown to their targets with their exact passenger manefests. They reek of “witness relocation” and “fake victims”.

    The towers themselves are being revealed as a 40 year ruse. Did it really have 4*10^6 sq ft of space under each tower roof where 40k people worked? Or were the actual figures less than 1/3 that, whereby many of the businesses in the upper floors were front-companies for various spy agencies?

    Researchers are going through the victim lists, compensation funds, the online memorials, etc. and are discovering sufficient issues with the simVictims. Guess what? This would actually be in keeping with Operation Northwoods which also would have had created out of thin air victims. Thus, your alarming statement “nearly 3000 innocent people had been violently murdered” might just be you overplaying your disinformation cards.

    “to get its almost unanimous congressional resolution to go to war in Afghanistan”

    You mean, after the propaganda had been thoroughly presented on the telly beginning in the earliest minutes of the “attack” and after the Anthrax letters had been received?

    “Afghanistan where al Qaeda was headquartered”

    Al Qaeda, as in “the base” or “the database” in the CIA computers containing a list of those who dabbled in terrorists acts and were on the US payroll?

    The Taliban in Afghanistan offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, providing the US gave proof of his involvement. The US never did. The FBI doesn’t even list 9/11 as one of Osama bin Laden’s supposed crimes (while on the US payroll right up to 9/11/2001) due to insufficient evidence.

    The non-faked videos of Osama bin Laden showed him denying involvement.

    Afghanistan, where the US wanted a natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea across their country, where the Taliban refused, where the US said “either you accept our offers of Gold or we will bury you with a carpet of bombs before the snow flies in October”, where most of the heroin supply comes from that the CIA has a penchant for distributing…

    “Afghanistan where President Clinton sent Tomahawk missiles in response to their previous coordinated and deadly suicide operations against two US embassies in Africa in 1998″

    These “deadly suicide operations against two US embassies”, too, have their fishy elements.

    Mr. Albury writes:

    [Y]ou obviously haven’t even bothered to read NCSTAR 1A, which is the product of a thorough and very competent investigation by people with real science and engineering credentials? Why do you urge people to “ask OFFICIALS to investigate Building 7,” when at least 125 of the scientists and engineers involved in the NIST investigation of WTC 7 were CIVILIANS from academia and private industry?

    I read it; I understood it; and it is seriously flawed. “Real science and engineering credentials” does not make a person immune from lying or from extreme political pressure to publish flawed reports. All of those 125 scientists and engineers involved in the NIST investigation of WTC 7 know which side their bread is buttered on with regards to funding their research projects.

    Have any of those 125 scientists and engineers made themselves available for public debate regarding their methodologies and conclusions? Have they made their simulation models available? Nope to both.

    Because you obviously neither read nor understood the NCSTAR 1A, let me give you a hint: Stage 2. Yep, of the 18 stories of WTC-7 collapse that they could observe in videos, they divided it into 3 stages. Stage 2 was 8 stories (100+ ft) that fell in 2.25 seconds and whose acceleration is indistinguishable from free-fall whose onset came suddenly and was uniform & symmetrical across the length and width of the building. Dr. Shyam Sunder even explains in a briefing that free-fall is when a structure has no support to resist the gravitational acceleration acting on a mass. The only way for the structure and support of WTC-7 on 8 stories to suddenly transition into a state where it offered zero resistance to the falling upper mass is for additional energy sources to act on it to move it out of the way, something that neither NIST nor the govt can ever admit without shooting the whole 9/11 fiction in the foot.

    Of course, in trying to munge over this glaring piece of obvious evidence, the NIST report uses math to average those 8 stories of stage 2 with 1 story of stage 1 and 10 stories of stage 3 (both of which had structural resistance to impede free-fall) to come up with the valid but purposely misleading conclusion that those 18 stories fell 40% slower than free-fall.

    Gee, Mr. Albury, it seems like just yesterday when I wrote you:

    Mr. Albury wrote:
    “I gave you two glaring examples of pure fraud from Griffin, and his WTC free-fall, or near free-fall collapse times are another. The South Tower collapsed in ~15 seconds, and the North Tower took ~22 seconds.”

    What do you get when you average Bill Gates’ net worth with that of, say, 20 homeless men? Answer: Twenty-one billionaires, but 20 of them have nothing to show for it.

    Imagine that you ordered McDonald’s take-out in town A at noon and then were pulled over at 1 p.m. by a traffic cop 60 miles away at town B for speeding. In trying to talk yourself out of the ticket, you produce the receipt with the time stamp and say: “See, 60 miles in 1 hour means I was only going 60 m.p.h., which is at the speed limit.” Instead of one ticket, the officer proceeds to write up two. Why? He explains that that 60 mile stretch had a 10 mile construction zone where the speed limit was 30 m.p.h. Therefore, by your own admission, you sped through the construction zone where fines are double. And if you didn’t, then it would take you 20 minutes to go through that 10 miles, leaving 40 minutes to travel the remaining 50 miles, putting your speed before and after the construction zone at 75 m.p.h.

    Mr. Albury, when you give total collapse times for the towers in a lame effort to prove Griffin and free-fall a fraud, you are doing little more than proving (a) you have little understanding of math and physics, (b) you are purposely playing math games to distract people in tune with some disinformation agenda, or {c) both.

    Oh, snap! It really was yesterday! And evidently, the math lesson wasn’t approved by Mr. McKee in time for you to notice before you go off and promote the flawed NIST report on WTC-7 and its valid but purposely misleading averaging of collapse times to fail at debunking free-fall.

    I’d really like to take the time to dissect your posting further, but I think I have done enough to expose your hidden agenda, disinformation, and misinformation.

    To whom it may concern:

    Mr. Albury appears to be a fine little soldier/disciple of Dr. Cass Sunstein and Dr. Phillip Zelikow, experts of online infiltration and public presumption, respectively. Congratulations, Mr. Albury!

    • I find it somewhat repugnant and mostly futile to argue with “no-planers,” Senor El Once, especially one who’d refer to any of the 246 innocent people aboard the 4 hijacked planes on 9/11 as “simVictims,” but how would the collapse of WTC 7 have looked if the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A had occurred? Since collapse times are so important to you, how did your “researchers” determine that WTC 7’s facade took 6.5 seconds to collapse completely, when the top ~242′ of the ~610′ building were timed in ~5.4 seconds, and no videos show the bottom floors? Did the other ~368′ fall in ~1.1 seconds, or can’t people with PEs and doctorates read timers and subtract times and elevations?

      • Mr. Albury wrote so lovingly:

        I find it somewhat repugnant and mostly futile to argue with “no-planers,” Senor El Once,

        Why Mr. Albury! Are you trying to butter me up? That is just the nicest and sweetest thing you have ever written to me! I do hope that you have the fortitude to maintain that outlook going forward.

        Maybe the futility of discussing with me as well as my repugnancy will send you skurrying. Mr. McKee and I can only hope.

        Mr. Albury wrote:

        especially [a no-planer] who’d refer to any of the 246 innocent people aboard the 4 hijacked planes on 9/11 as “simVictims,”

        Guess you learned that one in the “Karl Rove School of Disinformation Framing”, eh? “Oh those poor innocent people about the 4 hijacked planes, oh woes me oh my!” That’s the technique, for sure. Change the subject to something emotional so that you don’t have to address the issue.

        And what is the issue, Mr. Albury? The issue is that those 246 innocent people aren’t really so innocent. The starting point used to be that there was no proof that they even got on the planes, that the planes — some not even scheduled to fly that day — even took off, and that the planes even flew to their targets. However, the new starting point goes back even further. You start looking into those 246 innocent people and you end up with two classes of people.

        At this point, the joke would be that the two classes of people were rich and richer, because the flights had an unusual number of millionaires. But no, the two classes of people I’m referring to is the class of actual people going into witness protection and the class of fake people who were photoshopped together along with fake back-stories and legend associates.

        What is damning for you and your 3000 number is the nature of what the towers and their occupants were: mostly hollow and CIA front companies revealing more fake legends.

        Mr. Albury wrote:

        but how would the collapse of WTC 7 have looked if the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A had occurred?

        Good question. I assume you’re referring to the computer simulation that was never released for independent verification. Well, from viewing the simulation, the collapse would not have looked as we observed. The two don’t match.

        Mr. Albury wrote:

        Since collapse times are so important to you, how did your “researchers” determine that WTC 7’s facade took 6.5 seconds to collapse completely, when the top ~242′ of the ~610′ building were timed in ~5.4 seconds, and no videos show the bottom floors? Did the other ~368′ fall in ~1.1 seconds, or can’t people with PEs and doctorates read timers and subtract times and elevations?

        No, Mr. Albury. You are the one with the fascination for collapse times as you continue to trot out that the full height of the demolition was a singular event of supposed significance. Stages, Mr. Albury. Stages. The demolition was not uniform top-to-bottom in one stage.

        Funny you should mention PE’s and PhD’s with an inability to read timers or subtract times and elevations. Because when you review their work on just the top ~242′ that fell in ~5.4 seconds, it turns out that they started the clock early for no apparent reason… except to get a time of 5.4 seconds, which was the best their computer simulation could achieve, and that by over-driving parameters into extreme boundary conditions (e.g., on fire heat, uniformity, damage) that flat out did not exist in WTC-7.

        So pretty please, Mr. Albury. Please find me repugnant and mostly futile to argue with and go peddle the govt’s weak and faulty position somewhere else.

  5. You’ve neglected to explain how your “researchers” came up with their 6.5 or 6.6-second collapse time for the facade of WTC 7, Senor. No video shows the bottom of it, since buildings block it from view, and there’s also too much dust to see clearly enough to determine the time to the nearest 1/10 second. It appears to have taken at least 9 seconds, which is well over the free-fall time of ~6.15 seconds from ~610′. You apparently just blindly accept anything Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, David Chandler, and other liars tell you, and haven’t even timed a video of it for yourself.
    It’s meaningless to the C/D “theory,” since NIST’s collapse modeling clearly explains the free-fall portion, and there was no evidence found in the debris indicating that explosives were used, but can’t your heroes even get the time right, or at least explain their methodology? NIST did, as you’d know if you ever read NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, which you obviously haven’t.

  6. Dear Mr. Albury wrote:

    You’ve neglected to explain how your “researchers” came up with their 6.5 or 6.6-second collapse time for the facade of WTC 7, Senor. No video shows the bottom of it, since buildings block it from view, and there’s also too much dust to see clearly enough to determine the time to the nearest 1/10 second. It appears to have taken at least 9 seconds, which is well over the free-fall time of ~6.15 seconds from ~610?. You apparently just blindly accept anything Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, David Chandler, and other liars tell you, and haven’t even timed a video of it for yourself.

    That is such a nice red herring, Mr. Albury. Because I am an adherent to the Zen-Collapse-Time of decades, I believe that the towers were in a constant state of demolition. You are evidently as weak in your math as you are in your physics, because a collapse time of 126 million seconds is certainly greater than a collapse time of 6.5 seconds or even the 9 seconds that you propose.

    But want to know what all 3 of our total collapse times have in common? Two things. One is that the total collapse time is irrelevant. Two is Stage 2, as NIST so coined a very short period of time within all of our total collapse times.

    Stage 2 was 2.25 seconds across 8 floors (100+ ft) where the building’s downward acceleration was indistinguishable from free-fall. Your weak physics background has caught you unprepared to fatham why this is so important.

    This is the anomaly that the 9/11 Truth Movement (e.g., Chandler, Gage) hammers home, that NIST tried to bury with its averaging with other stages to conclude “18 floors fell at 40% of free-fall”, that the govt hasn’t adequately explained, and that you completely ignore.

    Mr. Albury wrote:

    It’s meaningless to the C/D “theory,” since NIST’s collapse modeling clearly explains the free-fall portion,

    No, it does not. Had you read it, you would know the many ways in which they tried to obscufiate their explanation, which had copious weasel words and wiggle room. It starts out with a complicated computer model that they have not released for independent review, thereby popping the bubble of your fantasy regarding their clear explanation.

    Once they release that modeling software and the parameters they used (which they won’t), then you’ll be able to write what you wrote without being taken as either an duped idiot or a blatant liar.

    Mr. Albury wrote:

    and there was no evidence found in the debris indicating that explosives were used,

    Another wonderful red herring. Good thing I developed a taste for pickled herring when I was a kid.

    In the above quote from you, you forgot to add your weasel words. You would have been better off to write something like: “no evidence found in the debris indicating that conventional explosives were used.”

    Of course, you only find what you are looking for. They were so “convinced” (or shall we say “pressured from higher authorities to whom those agencies were beholden”) that it was “by golly sole-y aircraft impacts, jet fuel, and office fires”, there was seemingly no need to test for those things, for accelerants, or for nukes. And if they did test, no need to make it public and no need to publish accurate data or conclusions. They made haste of the clean-up effort, and to the chagrin and protests of fire investigators and the likes, removed and destroyed the evidence.

    Alas, not only was nano-thermite — not a conventional explosive — to be found in the dust, but also fizzling unspent nuclear material was burning foundry-hot for months under the rubble (without air).

    And if that isn’t what is obvious in so many videos of the totality of the destruction, Mr. Albury, where does NIST address these most anomalous features?

    Oh, snap! They don’t! They totally ignore their charge of thoroughly investigating this and stop before really shooting themselves in the foot by venturing a lame-ass explanation or even the truth. (I’m sure if they would have made one, you would have repeated it here. They didn’t, so you didn’t. Thank you for exposing your allegience.)

    Mr. Albury wrote:

    but can’t your heroes even get the time right, or at least explain their methodology? NIST did, as you’d know if you ever read NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, which you obviously haven’t.

    Y-A-W-N! Mr. Albury, I like how you try to put the onus on me and load me up with busy work. “Oh boy, and golly gee whiz! I guess I have to go on out right this very minute and read NCSTAR 1A and 1-9 (again), just because Mr. Albury said so.”

    I can’t help but notice that you have never said you read them; it was always untruthful accusations about me not reading them. Very crafty, Mr. Albury. But what is even more noticeable, Mr. Albury, is that your arguments indicate a lack of your understanding of those materials, of the case your superiors charged you to make based on those materials, and of basic math and physics principles.

    Could you do me a small favor by posting some information about the advanced disinformation training course you attended, so I could go learn some crafty tricks as well? Gracias!

    • Nice red herring of your own, but I doubt whether the government pays anyone to try to discuss something intelligently with someone who thinks the WTC was nuked. To clarify my question on the elapsed time for WTC 7’s facade collapse, according to Gage and his equally dishonest or ill-informed brethren, in NCSTAR 1A, 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION, the NIST engineers and scientists only attempted to present a time for the part of the collapse that they could see and measure accurately.
      For more detailed information, read 12.5.3 here:

      http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

      NIST furnished a map showing 9 different camera locations north of WTC 7 in fig 5-183 at this link:

      http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf

      and used what they designated as Camera 3, which was positioned NNW of WTC 7 at West Street near Harrison Street. If the NIST investigators can furnish that much detail, why can’t Gage, Ryan, and the rest of the researchers in your 9/11 “truth movement”?
      It doesn’t matter to me what the exact time is, but it does matter if someone made one up, presented it to the nearest 1/10 of a second, is off by ~40%, and can’t even explain his source and methodology, so I was hoping that you’d clear it all up for me.
      Thanks in advance.

  7. Dear Mr. Albury,

    Such a tiresome repetitive game you play.

    It doesn’t matter to me what the exact time is, but it does matter if someone made one up, presented it to the nearest 1/10 of a second, is off by ~40%, and can’t even explain his source and methodology, so I was hoping that you’d clear it all up for me.

    Mr. Albury, you admit that the total collapse time doesn’t matter. You have your reasons for saying it was 9 seconds, I have my reasons for saying it was in the millions of seconds, and people in the 9/11 Truth Movement have their reasons for saying it was 6.5 seconds, plus or minus 1/10 of a second.

    To say that one is off by ~40% without presenting your assumptions and methodologies in concise terms as if you honestly and truly understood them is therefore wrong.

    Assumptions and methodologies are stated in the videos of Mr. Chandler, the high school physics teacher. Had you been been paying attention during his lessons and not building up distractionary strawmen arguments, the dastardly dishonesty in the precision of tenths of seconds you’ve supposedly uncovered in the 9/11 Truth Movements might have some bite.

    How many tenths of a second are in stage 2 of those NIST reports? Twenty-two and a half. How many vertical feet? Over 100. What was the acceleration of the roof line during this stage? 32 feet per second squared. How is it possible for sufficient structure representing over 8 stories to become so suddenly weakened as to offer zero resistance to the falling mass?

  8. My reason for saying that the exterior of WTC 7 collapsed in roughly 9 seconds is that I’ve timed it from a number of videos, and even though the bottom portion is obscured by dust clouds and buildings in the foreground, that’s how long it appears to have taken. It was certainly not all the way down in the time given by your “researchers.” NIST’s reason for saying that the top ~242′ fell in ~5.4 seconds is clearly explained by them in NCSTAR 1A. The reason for the ~2.25 seconds of acceleration that’s barely discernable from pure free fall is abundantly clear from NIST’s collapse modeling.
    That leaves some very simple questions for you, but primarily these:
    -HOW did Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and your other “researchers” come up with 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire 610′ collapse?
    -Did the bottom ~368′ fall in ~1.1 seconds?
    -What would the collapse of WTC 7 have looked like if the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A had occurred?
    -How long would it have taken?
    -How long would each portion of it have taken?
    -If WTC 7 was secretly bombed, why aren’t there even rumors of explosively-severed columns found in the debris, let alone photos and eyewitness accounts of them?
    My 6:05 PM post on February 11 includes links to NIST’s detailed explanation for their 5.4 seconds, and I’m simply expecting that Gage, et al. did the same, so please feel free to enlighten me. I fail to see how that’s a straw man or distraction, and it’s not a game.
    Questions you can’t answer may seem to be tiresome and repetitive to you also, however, so my apologies.

    • Dear Mr. Albury,

      You pose some interesting questions, and I look forward to your answers.

      The mark of a good courtroom lawyer is that they never ask questions that they don’t already know the answer to. Ah, but one reason of many to let you research & write the answers to your own questions.

      Why should I do your spiritual work and your enlightenment for you? Me handing the answers to you won’t give you as much satisfaction as researching the web to find the answers yourself. Consider it a Zen endeavor to bring your heart and mind at peace in finally discovering the answers to those burning questions.

      However, do not expect their answers to leave you where you expect to be taken. And don’t be surprised when you find that answers you seek (total collapse time calculation) are insignificant compared to the other questions that need to be asked and answered (why was any stage of the demolition measured at free-fall?)

      If you want to make hay about me not answering your questions, you do so at risk of your own credibility. Such off-road, off-topic games do not answer the questions you seemingly pose, and therefore expose agendas.

  9. OK, Senor; here’s one of the answers for you:
    Richard Gage and other “researchers” in the 9/11 “truth movement” didn’t bother to time the collapse of the exterior of WTC 7; they simply invented a time that is slightly over the 6.15 second free-fall time from 610′. Why anyone would believe them is another matter entirely.
    Since the C/D “theory” is primarily based on the appearance of WTC 7’s facade collapse, and there’s no real evidence supporting it, only truthers can explain what they think it would have looked like if NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequence had occurred, however. Would you like to be the first?

    • OK, Senor; here’s one of the answers for you:
      Richard Gage and other “researchers” in the 9/11 “truth movement” didn’t bother to time the collapse of the exterior of WTC 7; they simply invented a time that is slightly over the 6.15 second free-fall time from 610?.

      Dear Mr. Albury,

      And you substantiate this how? Please provide the URL to the report (with page number) or the video (with minute) where you think they invented the total collapse time. Chop, chop, hop to it, Mr. Albury.

      Your wording above betrays you. It betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject, your purposeful mischaracterization of methodology, and your agenda.

      I’ve already demonstrated with my Zen demolition time of decades that it does not matter when the stop watch on the controlled demolition was started or stopped. What matters is accurately measuring movement of the building during various stages of whatever time period is assumed.

      I think you’re just re-packaging the legitimate criticism of NIST’s deceitful handling of those very same measurements for the purposes of flinging nonsense and doubt into this forum. Deceitful, whereby NIST started the stop watch early (in a stage with no observable building movement) and then combined stages of no movement, stages of resistance, and stages of free-fall into supposedly one monolithic event where everything was uniform and consistent.

      So now the straw you’re trying to harvest for your strawman argument is that the truth movement (1) makes their free-fall arguments based on arbitrarily measured total demolition times as if it were a single event and (2) uses an incorrect time of six point something seconds for the total demolition that you think is 9 seconds.

      Fooey on your game, Mr. Albury. Fooey on your total collapse times. They are irrelevant.

      Relevant are significant demolition stages that suddenly accelerated (e.g., increased speed) as if no structural resistance or content were there to slow it, and other demolition stages that continued accelerating, albeit with structure and content in place to slow.

      Mr. Albury wrote:

      Why anyone would believe them is another matter entirely.

      Why would anyone believe you?

      Mr. Albury wrote:

      Since the C/D “theory” is primarily based on the appearance of WTC 7’s facade collapse, and there’s no real evidence supporting it, only truthers can explain what they think it would have looked like if NIST’s Probable Collapse Sequence had occurred, however.

      And while you are reading the above over and over to yourself to bolster your confidence in your strawman arguments, please click the heels your ruby red slippers together, stroke your dog Toto, and chant: “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.”

      The operative word in your misguided missive is “probable”, derived from the word “probability” and is a weasel word for uncertainty. Another word to contemplate is “assumptions.” We have to give NIST credit where credit is due. For the assumptions that were foisted on them and the artificial limits established on their research, their probable collapse sequence makes sense. But when assumptions are scaled back to reality and when the artificial limits are lifted, like those that excluded considering (un)conventional demolition techniques, then the probability of their probable collapse sequence approaches zero.

  10. Your turn to hop to it, Senor, since I gave you links to NIST’s explanation for their 5.4- second collapse time for the top ~242′ here on February 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Their source and methodology are very clear, and I’m simply asking you to provide the same for Gage, Jones, Ryan, and others in your “truth movement,” who claim that the entire 610′ exterior fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.
    With no explosively-severed columns found in the debris, and no other evidence of a C/D, I agree that collapse times are irrelevant, but it seems rather obvious to me that your “researchers” are lying to you.

    • Dear Mr. Albury,

      I try to shy away from personal attacks. But isn’t an accurate and truthful description of someone else’s antics an exception to that code of conduct? When I declare that you have all the features of a bot, I’m simply describing the impression you make on me.

      So why am I half tempted to address you in gest as “Albury-bot” without any “Mister”? Could it be because your last posting harkens me to play further in your games with “All aboard the Merry-Go-Round! Step right up for another spin at irrelevant total collapse times! Climb right aboard the pogo-horse of doing research at my command into irrelevant details I am too lazy to look up and will promptly ignore once you bring them up, distracting you then with some other dubiously skewed topic from my database. I am a bot. I am programmed with artificial intelligence to parse your words, mix them up, add some skew, and output them back to you and to always have the last word”?

      Your turn to hop to it, Senor, since I gave you links to NIST’s explanation for their 5.4- second collapse time for the top ~242? here on February 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Their source and methodology are very clear, and I’m simply asking you to provide the same for Gage, Jones, Ryan, and others in your “truth movement,” who claim that the entire 610′ exterior fell in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.

      Obviously, if you know Gage, Jones, and other in the “truth movement” claim blankety-blank feet fell whappity-doo seconds to the tenth, then you got it from somewhere reputable. If you’re going to bail straw with it in preparation for your strawman, the onus is on you to provide that URL that supports it. Chop, chop, and hop to it and SUBMIT, RUN, GOSUB, or EXECUTE, Mr. Albury-bot.

      I personally don’t give a hoot and will file the extensive database listing of URLs in your next output into the appropriate bit-bucket.

      With no explosively-severed columns found in the debris, and no other evidence of a C/D, I agree that collapse times are irrelevant, but it seems rather obvious to me that your “researchers” are lying to you.

      Mr. Albury-bot, you have stumbled upon an honesty point that you and I can agree on, but the lies of the infiltrated (or pressured) leaders of the 9/11 truth movement have nothing to do with your strawman argument regarding total collapse time. Were you not a bot, you would not keep repeating the above mentioned Merry-Go-Round ride in the face of agreeing “that collapse times are irrelevant.”

      Of course, “no explosively-severed columns found in the debris” is another strawman. Why? Because the external structures’ columns were actually in sections that were explosively-severed, most likely at the bolts with nano-thermite or simply being the weak link that the explosive force of a milli-nuke could sever. The internal columns of the structure were pulverized by milli-nukes and didn’t leave much.

      Keep in mind the energy that would be released in small milli-nuclear devices when you hear phrases from the videos like: “turned into its own dust”, “vaporized into its own dust”, and “it was that powerful…”

      9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 1

      9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 2

      Your statement “no other evidence of a C/D” is a bot dead-giveaway. One of the talking-point lies that you are programmed to repeat. Evidence of CD is dependent on looking for it, reporting it, and publishing accurately those findings to the public.

      The totality of the destruction depicted in the above videos is Exhibit A in the body of evidence of CD in the form of milli-nukes.

      Thus, Mr. Albury-bot, the dishonesty point of the infiltrated (or pressured) leaders of the 9/11 truth movement is that they suppress that 9/11 was a nuclear event, they suppress media manipulation of the impact videos foisted endlessly on the public, and the CIT circus is either another example of suppression or a distraction from these other damning areas.

  11. I hope these sources are reputable enough for you, Senor:
    Steven Jones at this link (page 27):

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

    also at ~18:30 (and other places) here:

    Kevin Ryan at 52:00 (and other places) here:

    (right before deliberately altering the words in Larry Silverstein’s PBS quote and libeling him)
    Richard Gage in every speech, including this one, where he claims that WTC 7 fell in “6.5 seconds” at 5:20 on the video timer:

    Now that I’ve done all of your work for you, why don’t you explain where your “researchers” got this 6.5 or 6.6 seconds?

    Here’s a compilation video containing footage of the collapse of WTC 7 from a number of different angles:

    Can you time it to the nearest .1 or .2 seconds? I showed you exactly how NIST got ~5.4 seconds for the top ~242′, so did the other ~368′ fall in 1.1 or 1.2 seconds? Once again, where is the explanation of their source and methodology? Chop, chop, and hop to it and SUBMIT, RUN, GOSUB, or EXECUTE.

  12. Dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

    I showed you exactly how NIST got ~5.4 seconds for the top ~242′, so did the other ~368′ fall in 1.1 or 1.2 seconds?

    Actually, you did not show exactly how NIST got ~5.4 seconds for the top ~242′, so the answer is no.

    Others have tried to reproduce that ~5.4 seconds for the first 18 stories of collapse and failed. This is covered in David Chandler’s 9/11 Analysis.

    Starting at 4:00, the some of the blatant lies of the NIST report are addressed.

    This video doesn’t try to reproduce NIST’s 5.4 number, but others from Chandler do, and fail. Chandler forwards the video to the point where the top 18 floors would have disappeared and then steps backward 5.4 seconds to the reported beginning of the collapse according to NIST. He discovered well over a second of time at the beginning when the building could not be observed collapsing.

    It is postulated that NIST needed to lie about 18 floors falling in 5.4 seconds (by starting their stopwatch early), because 5.4 seconds was the best they could over-drive the parameters of their software simulation into achieving. Need I remind you that neither the software simulation nor its parameters have released for independent validation.

    You are making a mountain out of a mole hill out of total collapse times, that no one can accurately measure due to the copious dust kicked up in the final stages of its demolition. You are waving a dainty hanky and shouting “Look over here! Look over here!” as a distraction from where the real focus should be placed.

    Your harping on total collapse times is indicative of your dishonesty and agenda, particularly when you even admit that total collapse times are irrelevant. What is relevant, as but one example, is the blatant and significant period of unexplained downward acceleration in WTC-7 that is indistinguishable from free-fall that even NIST documents. To gloss over this as you continually do is to expose your role in the continued cover-up of the real 9/11 crime and its true perpetrators.

  13. Chandler’s a one-trick pony, who knows absolutely nothing about structural engineering, construction, or controlled demolition. He’s never even attempted to explain how long the collapse would have taken if the NIST hypothesis had occurred, and that alone gives his “research” little to no meaning. In one of his absurd videos, he claims that the corners of the towers were bombed with his imaginary explosives, based on some puffs of dust, and says that it would collapse the entire building. They could have been topped off with the corners wide open, and then crews could have put in the chamfered corners later, but facts don’t matter to him. He also had no idea what the elevation values in NCSTAR 1A meant, but simply guessed that they were above some reference point that he’d need the blueprints to know.
    I emailed him a few times, and found out that he’s an intellectual coward too. Here’s an account of our brief exchange, before he screwed up royally about the distance WTC 7 fell during the 2,25 seconds he thinks are so important, was corrected by me, and then made some lame excuses not to discuss it anymore:

    http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=564809&articleId=59145&func=5&channel=Member+Guided+News

    I have the actual emails, and they were copied to quite a few other people, btw. Be sure to send him a nice cash donation, since he’s trying to bum money on his web site, as well as other links online. He’d qualify to fetch coffee for the NIST engineers he’s libeling.

    Read the NIST explanation for the 5.4 seconds before libeling them too. Unlike your “researchers,” they only timed the part they could see and accurately determine, and they fully explained it.

    • To the dear readers of Mr. McKee’s forum.

      Kudos and congratulations are in order to the Albury-bot for his last pitch-perfect disinformation posting.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      Chandler’s a one-trick pony,

      And he does his trick exceptionally well. Database archeologists of the future will discover the meager work of this high school teacher and commend him for his courage.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      (Chandler) knows absolutely nothing about structural engineering, construction, or controlled demolition.

      He doesn’t have to. Newtonian physics is enough.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      He’s never even attempted to explain how long the collapse would have taken if the NIST hypothesis had occurred, and that alone gives his “research” little to no meaning.

      He doesn’t have to. It is sufficient when he proves that the official government conspiracy theory is totally bumpkiss.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      In one of his absurd videos, he claims that the corners of the towers were bombed with his imaginary explosives, based on some puffs of dust, and says that it would collapse the entire building. They could have been topped off with the corners wide open, and then crews could have put in the chamfered corners later, but facts don’t matter to him.

      BRAVO, Albury-bot! How does the “Karl Rove School of Disinformation” label the technique you employed above? If I were to describe it, I’ll call it a “wave-off”, as in “Don’t look here, folks! Nothing to see. Move along now.”

      And for this reason alone, present & future readers & lurkers of this forum should see that the flag being waved by Albury-bot, a Semaphore for 9/11 Truth, should be re-framed from being a “wave-off” to in truth being a “wave-on”, as in “Do look here, folks! Something to see. Bore into now.”

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      I emailed him a few times, and found out that he’s an intellectual coward too. Here’s an account of our brief exchange, before he screwed up royally about the distance WTC 7 fell during the 2.25 seconds he thinks are so important, was corrected by me, and then made some lame excuses not to discuss it anymore:

      I am so very disappointed, Albury-bot. Your link does not work.

      See? This is what I’m talkin’ about when I encourage you to have your own blog. You can’t trust others to archive and preserve your wonderful words. You have to do it yourself.

      Under the assumption that your email exchange with Mr. Chandler was indeed available in a public forum, then re-posting (at least your half of the exchange) to your up-and-coming blog ought to be no problem. Your inbox has the source.

      I, in particularly, am eager to learn how your ignorance is physics was able to correct the high school physics teacher’s 2.25 seconds of WTC-7 free-fall.

      And if I were Mr. Chandler or even Mr. McKee, I, too, would be making up lame excuses not to engage in discussions with you anymore. You have that effect on people.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      I have the actual emails, and they were copied to quite a few other people, btw.

      Just the salient points of your correction to Mr. Chandler’s work will suffice… But on your blog. It isn’t relevant to this thread or this blog.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      Be sure to send him a nice cash donation, since he’s trying to bum money on his web site, as well as other links online.

      Excellent suggestion, Albury-bot! I’m way ahead of you there and have been thanked by email already. Mr. Chandler’s work is most assuredly worthy of financial support, if nothing else to cover the medical expenses from the headaches causes by communication with the likes of the Albury-bot.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      He’d qualify to fetch coffee for the NIST engineers he’s libeling.

      The Albury-bot is only half-right in the above statement. Mr. Chandler doesn’t libel the NIST engineers; he libels the leadership of NIST who most certainly were pressured to produce such knowingly-flawed research.

      Where the Albury-bot is correct, is that Mr. Chandler indeed is not qualified to fetch coffee for NIST engineers. He is over-qualified. And were NIST engineers to be informed of Mr. Chandler’s visit, they would be the ones buying Mr. Chandler lunch, pressing $20 bills into his hand as they shake it profusely in gratitude, and thank him not only for his high school physics teaching but for the role model of scientific integrity he is. And the NIST engineers would lament, that were it not for their families, mortgage, the importance of steady employment, and certain non-compete non-disclosure statements they signed at employment, they’d be speaking out more vigorously in lambasting those embarrassing NIST reports.

      The Albury-bot wrote:

      Read the NIST explanation for the 5.4 seconds before libeling them too. Unlike your “researchers,” they only timed the part they could see and accurately determine, and they fully explained it.

      Did not. Saying it does not make it so. Reference link with page number or minute mark in the video, please.

  14. My apologies, Senor; you apparently need AOL software on your computer to open that link, which I posted on an AOL message board after my revealing exchange with Mr. Chandler. If Craig will be kind enough to allow a little extra space, here’s the entire text of it:

    Chronology of a cop-out:

    1.) [First email from Chandler]

    Dear Albury,

    We haven’t been introduced. I’m not sure who you are or why all these
    people are paying attention to you. You have probably seen my name in
    connection with a series of YouTube videos. I really don’t have time
    to get embroiled in this discussion (summer vacation is my busiest
    time of year), but since the conversation has wandered into my
    neighborhood of involvement it’s hard to pass up dropping a couple of
    points into the mix.

    1. We are not talking about “nearly freefall.” We are talking about
    freefall. My measurement was within the margin of error of absolute
    freefall, actually slightly high: 9.88 m/s^2. NIST’s measurement was
    dead on their stated value of freefall to the nearest hundredth. The
    “nearly” quibble doesn’t make it more plausible that this was a
    natural occurrence, and given the actual measurements, it is not
    justified. It sounds like what you’re saying is, “You can’t REALLY
    believe it fell AT freefall, can you?” My answer, “Well, yes, if
    that’s what the measurements indicate.”

    2. The 2.5 or 2.25 second interval is significant apart from whatever
    went on before or after. If a rock falls past your apartment window
    it is possible to analyze its speed and acceleration, and to determine
    that there is zero support other than air resistance, independently
    of knowing anything outside the limits of its visibility through the
    window. What is significant about a period of freefall (over 100 feet
    according to NIST) is that during that interval there is zero support.
    Whether there was creaking and groaning of the building prior to that
    interval (while columns were being severed, for instance), or whether
    the falling material met resistance later on is irrelevant. It is a
    distraction to even bring it up. NIST attempted a deception in its
    final draft for public comment in August 2008. It asserted no
    freefall by comparing “freefall time” with a 5.4 second interval. It
    stated (erroneously) that they assumed constant speed during that
    interval, but the equation they used to describe it was derived from
    an assumption of constant acceleration (also erroneous). There was
    constant acceleration only for the shorter 2.25 second interval, as
    they measured it. They tried to obscure the deception by citing only
    two data points, like starting and stopping a stopwatch, and comparing
    this with “freefall time,” rather than even mentioning acceleration.

    2. NIST’s value, in the final report, for the distance of freefall
    was something over 100 feet. It is interesting, in passing, that this
    is not even in agreement with their 2.25 second interval. 2.25
    seconds of freefall corresponds to 81 feet. My 2.5 second estimate
    corresponds to 100 feet. Interesting. One is led to wonder about the
    editing history of the final version of the report.

    3. NIST had no basis for its starting point for the 5.4 second
    interval. Yes, there were destructive processes and small movements
    going on in the building prior to the time it let go and suddenly
    transitioned to freefall, but any “beginning” they ascribe to the
    instant they started their stopwatch is fictitious. As I have
    demonstrated in one video analysis, and the subject of another
    analysis video I will be releasing within the next few weeks, their
    starting point is totally without merit. It is a bare assertion of
    what they claim is happening inside the building out of view of the
    public and even themselves. The rationalization that they saw a
    single pixel transition, at that time is without merit. There were
    ongoing small movements of the building from the time of the fall of
    the east penthouse, which is prior to their asserted starting point.
    There was no sustained downward motion of the building for at least
    another second after their supposed start time. Don’t you find it
    interesting that such a bland, eventless starting point was chosen and
    it just happened to give a fall time that exactly coincided with the
    5.4 second prediction of their model? The 5.4 seconds continues to be
    an issue because in the final report the new analysis is described as
    simply a refinement of what continues to be supported as the
    essentially correct previous analysis.

    4. NIST’s assertion that the interior had already collapsed and all
    we were seeing was the collapse of a hollow shell contradicts
    observations. The actual collapse of the building gave rise to
    tremendous billows of debris that roiled down the street, that some
    have likened to pyroclastic flow. Without getting into the
    correctness of that term to describe this phenomenon, it describes the
    appearance well. This flow was initiated with the visible fall of the
    building, not earlier. Therefore, we are justified in assuming that
    the supposed “shell” was not in fact hollow, but represented the
    actual substantive collapse of the building. Furthermore, if the
    interior had already fallen, what was supporting the west penthouse to
    the end? It had not even completely disappeared when freefall
    commenced. The west penthouse and the section of the interior under
    it must have participated in the freefall. NIST appears to be trying
    to minimize the significance of freefall by saying it was only a thin
    shell that fell at that rate. This is not an effective argument
    because one would still have to account for how all support for this
    thin, but still substantial, shell was suddenly and completely
    removed. In fact, given its smaller mass, the support would have to
    be even more rigorously equal to zero, since smaller forces would give
    rise to larger, even more visible variations in the acceleration.
    Getting back to whether or not the interior was gutted first, one
    would also have to account for the apparent rigidity, lack of
    substantial deformations, and the paucity of broken windows prior to
    the final collapse. The majority of the window breakage was
    simultaneous with the visible fall of the building.

    Now I must get back to the hard work of summer vacation.

    By the way, it seems like your emails are nothing more than hollow
    cheerleading for the NIST report. I see little in your side of the
    exchange that could not have been just as well said by cutting and
    pasting from the report itself. Yes, we are all aware of what the
    report says. Your emails do not give us any reason to believe it.

    –David Chandler

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    2.) [my reply that Chandler can't handle, and will make a ridiculous excuse not to address]

    Hello David-

    I’m sorry we haven’t been properly introduced too, but having read your views on the WTC collapses and watched some of your Internet videos, I not sure why anyone’s paying attention to you either. Thermite, one of the imaginary and redundant substances that Richard Gage and others in the 9/11 truth movement have claimed brought down the WTC hi-rises, is “used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter,” so rather than applying simple high school physics to some collapse videos, you should be wondering why there were no steel columns found in the WTC debris that had been cut through the way a hot knife cuts through butter. In the real world, it’s not that neat and clean, and ignited thermite, unless restrained in a bulky fire-resistant contraption, would simply fall off an in-place steel column, spall the concrete floor while sizzling innocuously for a minute or so, and then rapidly cool. If placed on top of a horizontal sample column in sufficient quantity, thermite might burn through its horizontal surfaces eventually, but would leave amorphous yellow blobs on the ends that would certainly have been noticed by cleanup personnel on the large number of columns alleged by you to have been suspiciously severed in each collapse. Contrary to truth movement legend, in no case would it leave pools of molten steel for more than a minute or two, and certainly not tons of it for months.

    Nanothermite, also featured in truth movement theories, is an extremely high explosive, not an incendiary, and to be effective it would have to be incorporated into a cutter charge, not painted on as claimed in Drs. Jones and Harrit’s “Active Thermitic Material…” paper’s conclusions, but the loud bangs, blinding flashes, and supersonic (not the 50 or 100 mph cited by you) ejecta rule it out, especially on the 236 out of 283 columns in each tower that were in plain sight and ~60% outside of the buildings. Cutter charges also leave ends which couldn’t possibly be mistaken for factory cuts and 4-hole connection plates.

    Just as Drs. Jones and Harrit, Gregg Roberts, and the other Bentham researchers provided rigorous proof of the presence of aluminum, rust, silicon, and some other common substances in the WTC dust, and have concluded that it “reminded” them of something, you’ve created an equally elaborate straw man based on a physics software program that essentially proves the direction and acceleration of gravity. And just as they’ve neglected to present exemplars of whatever they were reminded of, you’ve failed to establish a theoretical collapse time for WTC 7 to have fallen in accordance with the NIST Probable Collapse Sequence and modeling, or to provide any real or supporting evidence at all that the building was brought down by explosives.

    It’s obvious that you have no construction or structural engineering knowledge or you wouldn’t have been wondering in at least one of your videos what the NIST engineers used as a reference elevation for their 925′-4″ and 683′-6″ values. Those are elevations above mean sea level, and are usually expressed in feet and hundredths, or 925.33 and 683.50 respectively. This is a universal practice in the construction industry done to simplify adding and subtracting distances, and in this case yielded a net difference of 241.83′, or 241 feet and 10 inches, which NIST rounded up to 242′. Your lack of basic and relevant knowledge like this, clearly evidenced again in another video in which you asserted that the towers’ chamfered corners had some sort of structural significance, didn’t stop you from falsely accusing numerous highly qualified NIST SEs of deliberate deception, based on their honest presentation of a collapse time, something that they correctly regarded as irrelevant in NCSTAR 1 and addressed in NCSTAR 1A partly because of the misguided focus put on it by your movement.

    Kudos for correcting the error in their “for public comment” release of NCSTAR 1A, but I’m fairly certain that PEs with doctorates in structural engineering have mastered enough simple high school physics to realize that it was the acceleration, not the speed, that they assumed as constant in their explanation. You’re also correct in stating that ~81′ is the free-fall distance for 2.25 seconds, but you neglected to consider the fact that the ~2.25 second interval occurred ~1.75 seconds after the top of the main roof’s parapet wall on the north side had already begun falling, and calculating an inapplicable distance from rest is a much more serious error than a simple typo. The NIST value of “something over 100 feet,” which was actually 105′ in their final report, is a fair but somewhat low approximation, since even assuming a constant acceleration derived from the time and ~7′ distance for the preceding 1.75 seconds, the top of the parapet wall was moving at >8 fps, which represents at least .25 seconds in a free fall from rest. The free fall distance in feet for the interval from .25 seconds to 2.5 seconds is ~100.63 minus ~1.00, and NIST’s “something over 100 feet” probably took into consideration the fact that 8 fps is a low estimate, since there was a positive da/dt during that ~1.75 seconds you forgot about. Simply put, the next time you see a rock falling past your apartment window, don’t assume that it was stationary when you first observed it unless it actually was. It was also clearly stated by them that it was an approximation, and NIST said that their 5.4 seconds assumed constant acceleration, which was incorrectly stated as speed in the earlier report, so they’ve already acknowledged that it was erroneous, although the error doesn’t negate the fact that the overall time for that distance was ~60% greater than free fall. As you said, “interesting,” but I’m not “led to wonder,” based simply on your faulty 2.25-second distance calculation, whether you can teach physics to high school students.

    Unlike Richard Gage, you at least backed off somewhat from the “pyroclastic flow” canard ( I can certainly understand why you didn’t want to get into the “correctness” of that term used repeatedly by him and others), but you totally misrepresented the NIST methodology for establishing a significant collapse initiation point from the video taken by Camera 3. The analysis of pixel brightness was the most rigorous way possible with a grainy video, and the time derived corresponds very closely to the beginning of the downward movement of the main exterior walls. Since you freely accuse NIST of deception and belong to AE911truth, I’d also like to hear your explanation for Richard Gage’s repeated assertion of 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for WTC 7’s total collapse, when it was closer to 10 seconds and was impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy because of the dust clouds (which are created in all building collapses, and are not directly related to the explosives in controlled demolitions), as well as the fact that buildings in the foreground blocked the bottom portion of the building from view in videos. If the NIST engineers could only present a partial collapse time, I’m led to wonder how he managed to determine the total time to the nearest .1 second, so maybe you could explain it to me. He’s also asserted near free-fall time for both towers, despite the fact that airborne debris very obviously began hitting the ground before the North Tower collapse zone had even reached the height of WTC 7, and while the South Tower fell considerably faster, even its ~15 seconds isn’t “near free-fall time” when that time is around 9.2 seconds. Collapse times are a poor substitute for evidence of a controlled demolition anyway, but at least try to get them right, and the truth movement has undoubtedly been corrected on this numerous times by now. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/39/qLShZOvxVe4

    You might also want to consider the fact that a very prevalent hypothesis by the NIST people and others prior to the WTC 7 investigation was that the severing of a half dozen or more perimeter columns near the southwest corner, caused by falling North Tower debris, was a contributing factor in its later collapse, as were pressurized fuel lines from the basement levels to backup generators on upper floors, which were thought to have fueled the WTC 7 fires. NIST ruled out both in their report, something hardly to be expected from a group of 230 or more scientists and engineers who are all inexplicably conspiring to fool everyone, and to manufacture collapse causes to hide the use of explosives, as you’ve implied or claimed repeatedly.

    Accepting the findings of the extremely well-qualified NIST investigators is neither “cheerleading” nor “hollow,” and if you want to continue libeling them and countless others while trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, I’d strongly suggest that you and the truth movement come up with some actual evidence of explosives, not something you were reminded of in some dust samples, and certainly not a specious claim that buildings fell too fast, when you’ve deliberately misrepresented the observed times, and haven’t even bothered to present calculated collapse times that differ from them.

    [Since I'm copying others on this reply, I've also included my previous comments to another of your videos below here. I forwarded them to you on 6/14/10, and would welcome a response from you on them also, whenever time permits.]

    All the best,
    Albury

    My previous comments:

    A guy dropping cardboard boxes on each other to prove a collapse hypothesis that doesn’t even get the times for them right attests to the lack of sanity and rationality in the 9/11 “truth movement,” but this David Chandler video is almost the best evidence I’ve ever seen that the North Tower collapse occurred without any assistance from their imaginary explosives:

    It’s based on a collapse video of the North Tower taken from the north, or impact side, and Mr. Chandler does us the favor of replaying the collapse initiation sequence back and forth long enough for everyone to see and understand it. If explosives had triggered that downward movement of the ~60,000 tons which the top 13 or 14 stories weighed, the smoke pouring out of the building would have been blasted outward at supersonic speed a second or more before the top started falling. Mr. Chandler skips right over the extremely obvious fact that the smoke remains totally undisturbed until the collapse begins when the perimeter columns slowly buckle, and focuses on one corner, a “natural target” which would have had no structural significance, since the chamfered corners only provided vertical support for themselves and closed those areas in while the floor joists kept the four perimeter walls in place, and had some debris blow out from the rapidly compressed air inside. Take a close look, which he’s been kind enough to give us, at the smoke coming out of the west, or right side in the picture, and being pushed gently back toward the building by the NW winds prevailing that morning. It doesn’t suddenly reverse direction and very abruptly move away from the west wall, nor does the smoke being carried away in a southeasterly right to left direction change its pattern until the top floors begin falling, and then only at a speed proportional to that of the falling upper section of the building.

    Being the gift that just keeps on giving, Mrs. Chandler’s little pride and joy then diverts our attention to “another video aimed lower on the northwest corner of the building” and unintentionally blows his “free fall” or “near free fall” collapse claim all to heck. While he’s gushing and marveling over his contrived anomaly that a corner column didn’t fall exactly at the same time as the material around it, debris ejected free of the tower and obviously in free fall is clearly outpacing the collapse zone of the tower itself by a huge margin. At 2:43 on his video, Chandler synchronizes two clips to show something or other, but can’t help but show a large section of the west perimeter wall coming from the collapse initiation area and very rapidly descending in mid-air, along with every other piece of ejected debris, while the tower itself is being slowed by its own structure in the floors below that are being collapsed by gravity, not his imaginary explosives. His “clear evidence of actual explosions cutting the [NW corner] steel column” “corroborates” other evidence, according to him, but the explosively-cut column he’s imagining was never noticed by anyone who worked on the cleanup in the following seven to eight months, nor were any others reported by them. And oddly enough, the corner walls below his “one small focus jet,” a puff of compressed air escaping at a speed proportional to the collapse, manage to buckle without any assistance from “focus jets” of explosives, a truly remarkable feat.

    “Molten iron in the rubble pile” is his next evidence of explosives, yet he doesn’t establish that molten metal is ever pulled from the debris of an actual controlled demolition, and doesn’t even show molten metal in his brief clip purporting to do that, which only shows a grappler pulling some red-hot metal out of the debris in what the USGS survey of the area one and two weeks after 9/11 called a “hot spot,” where the fires were very prevalent and burned for months after 9/11. What kind of explosives topple hi-rises and then keep metal in their debris red hot for months, Dave?

    All of this plays out while the “minor” fires, which were far less severe on the impact sides of both towers, for obvious reasons, are still clearly visible even from that side of the North Tower prior to the collapse, and flare up even more as the collapse begins, so our aspiring sleuth has given us even more corroboration for the already plentiful evidence that the floors around the impact level were infernos:

    To conclude his dog-and-pony show, our David credits himself, Carolyn Chandler, without presenting any of her structural engineering, controlled demolition, or other relevant credentials, Tony Szamboti, and Graeme MacQueen, a retired Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director of the Center for Peace Studies at McMaster University, according to his short bio here:

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html,

    A high school science teacher, his long-suffering wife(?), a guy named Szamboti who claims to be an engineer from New Jersey, but has opinions not shared by most in the ASCE, and a retired theology professor and peace advocate from a Canadian university brought us all of this.

    The voices of reason can’t thank them enough.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    3.) [Chandler's cop-out itself, which would be funny if it weren't so pathetic]

    On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:06 AM, wrote:

    Hello David-

    I’m sorry we haven’t been properly introduced too, but having read your views on the WTC collapses and watched some of your Internet videos, I not sure why anyone’s paying attention to you either.

    I don’t need this. You’re spam. Bye.
    –David Chandler
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    4.) [Cincy truther nut who was copied on everything, and also has nothing relevant to say, but wants to mouth off anyway]
    In a message dated 7/5/2010 8:42:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, standish7@yahoo.com writes:

    Damn. I was wrong about Albury. He must be in junior high.

    J. Standish Fortin

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    5.) [My reply to both of them]

    Hi Standish-

    It appears that you and Mr. Chandler are desperately seeking excuses not to discuss his statements and videos, and while he finds it perfectly acceptable to direct comments toward me like “I’m not sure who you are or why all these people are paying attention to you” and “…it seems like your emails are nothing more than hollow cheerleading for the NIST report,” followed by “…I see little in your side of the exchange that could not have been just as well said by cutting and pasting from the report itself,” he’s very quick to express faux outrage over one similar but less pointed comment made in his direction and more than adequately explained in my remarks. If he were in charge of a truth movement message board, I’d simply have been banned at this point, as I’ve been on more than a dozen.

    It’s unfortunate that he’s presently unavailable to give us his reasons for ignoring the fact that the ~2.25 second WTC 7 free-fall interval didn’t start from rest, and that NIST’s 105′ estimation is much more accurate than the 81′ he erroneously tried to correct them with, or even to share with us how his mentor, Richard Gage, knows the total collapse time for WTC 7’s exterior, when the NIST engineers don’t because they didn’t have access to a video that showed the lower floors. If it really took 6.6 seconds total, either NIST couldn’t time the top 242′, or the bottom 368′ fell in 1.2 seconds, but I guess we’ll never know which, since Mr. Gage likes preaching to the choir too.

    Mr. Chandler also has no problem libeling 230+ highly-qualified NIST professionals, whom he repeatedly calls liars, and falsely accusing countless other Americans of murder, treason, and other major felonies, but it’s “spam” if someone challenges his theories. In the event that he’d like to discuss his Internet statements rationally, instead of glomming onto a flimsy pretext to avoid doing so, I’m pasting my entire email to him below, not the truncated portion that he copied:

    [see message from me to DC above]

  15. Sorry about the busted link to David Chandler’s video that I posted previously, Senor. Here’s one that works:

    along with my observations on it again:

    A guy dropping cardboard boxes on each other to prove a collapse hypothesis that doesn’t even get the times for them right attests to the lack of sanity and rationality in the 9/11 “truth movement,” but this David Chandler video is almost the best evidence I’ve ever seen that the North Tower collapse occurred without any assistance from their imaginary explosives:

    It’s based on a collapse video of the North Tower taken from the north, or impact side, and Mr. Chandler does us the favor of replaying the collapse initiation sequence back and forth long enough for everyone to see and understand it. If explosives had triggered that downward movement of the ~60,000 tons which the top 13 or 14 stories weighed, the smoke pouring out of the building would have been blasted outward at supersonic speed a second or more before the top started falling. Mr. Chandler skips right over the extremely obvious fact that the smoke remains totally undisturbed until the collapse begins when the perimeter columns slowly buckle, and focuses on one corner, a “natural target” which would have had no structural significance, since the chamfered corners only provided vertical support for themselves and closed those areas in while the floor joists kept the four perimeter walls in place, and had some debris blow out from the rapidly compressed air inside. Take a close look, which he’s been kind enough to give us, at the smoke coming out of the west, or right side in the picture, and being pushed gently back toward the building by the NW winds prevailing that morning. It doesn’t suddenly reverse direction and very abruptly move away from the west wall, nor does the smoke being carried away in a southeasterly right to left direction change its pattern until the top floors begin falling, and then only at a speed proportional to that of the falling upper section of the building.

    Being the gift that just keeps on giving, Mrs. Chandler’s little pride and joy then diverts our attention to “another video aimed lower on the northwest corner of the building” and unintentionally blows his “free fall” or “near free fall” collapse claim all to heck. While he’s gushing and marveling over his contrived anomaly that a corner column didn’t fall exactly at the same time as the material around it, debris ejected free of the tower and obviously in free fall is clearly outpacing the collapse zone of the tower itself by a huge margin. At 2:43 on his video, Chandler synchronizes two clips to show something or other, but can’t help but show a large section of the west perimeter wall coming from the collapse initiation area and very rapidly descending in mid-air, along with every other piece of ejected debris, while the tower itself is being slowed by its own structure in the floors below that are being collapsed by gravity, not his imaginary explosives. His “clear evidence of actual explosions cutting the [NW corner] steel column” “corroborates” other evidence, according to him, but the explosively-cut column he’s imagining was never noticed by anyone who worked on the cleanup in the following seven to eight months, nor were any others reported by them. And oddly enough, the corner walls below his “one small focus jet,” a puff of compressed air escaping at a speed proportional to the collapse, manage to buckle without any assistance from “focus jets” of explosives, a truly remarkable feat.

    “Molten iron in the rubble pile” is his next evidence of explosives, yet he doesn’t establish that molten metal is ever pulled from the debris of an actual controlled demolition, and doesn’t even show molten metal in his brief clip purporting to do that, which only shows a grappler pulling some red-hot metal out of the debris in what the USGS survey of the area one and two weeks after 9/11 called a “hot spot,” where the fires were very prevalent and burned for months after 9/11. What kind of explosives topple hi-rises and then keep metal in their debris red hot for months, Dave?

    All of this plays out while the “minor” fires, which were far less severe on the impact sides of both towers, for obvious reasons, are still clearly visible even from that side of the North Tower prior to the collapse, and flare up even more as the collapse begins, so our aspiring sleuth has given us even more corroboration for the already plentiful evidence that the floors around the impact level were infernos:

    To conclude his dog-and-pony show, our David credits himself, Carolyn Chandler, without presenting any of her structural engineering, controlled demolition, or other relevant credentials, Tony Szamboti, and Graeme MacQueen, a retired Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director of the Center for Peace Studies at McMaster University, according to his short bio here:

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html,

    A high school science teacher, his long-suffering wife(?), a guy named Szamboti who claims to be an engineer from New Jersey, but has opinions not shared by most in the ASCE, and a retired theology professor and peace advocate from a Canadian university brought us all of this.

    The voices of reason can’t thank them enough. :-)

  16. Just found your web page; find it very easy to use, and find it packed with interesting topics that I have interest in. Beyond that, just wanted to say hello. And thanks.

  17. They Will never allow the truth to see light of Day on 9-11 The Alburys of this world will just keep the Facard in place? Go After Bush for lies he put forward taking us into a War with Iraq 1.6 million died in this invassion and continue too by the Silent legacy you Bombed them with DU now involving mass Birth Defects in Iraq?
    Bush & Blair Both hold Guilty Verdicts for War Crimes? time they were hauled in and Jailed!

  18. It was jet fuel that is the difference,which has been proven to weaken steel,no ordinary fire,plus the impact of the plane in the heart of the building

    • Dear Mr. Chris,

      Nonsense. Do some more research, because even the “official” reports admit that the jet fuel burned off completely very early in the fires, like under 10 minutes. Those same “official” reports only endeavor to (lamely) explain the cause for initiation of the collapse, and stop their pandering well before even noting the numerous anomalies once the destruction starts. These would include pulverization, ejection of materials laterally, and near free-fall speeds.

      //

  19. As far as I’m concerned after viewing many websites devoted to the so called *Truth movement* I’ve come to the conclusion that they are nothing more then Liberal shrills to cause confusion in their part of conqure and divide.

    That is why no matter who does it nobody can get anything done to expose the corruption of the government. The Liberals pay people to pretend to oppose the government so the few that do see the truth such as piecing together what happened at the Pentagon or try to figure out what collapsed WTC #7 look bad.

    Did you know when 9/11 happened and the Pentagon was struck people were investigating missing money? It was briefly shown on some news networks like Fox before they became left wing news about the missing money.

    The *plane* struck in a specific area rather then hit in a general area to kill as much as possible. The *Muslims* could’ve landed on the roof and let er rip making the building almost unrepairable, but they did some weird maneuvers that is actually impossible for a Boeing 747 to preform at high speeds.

    Most 9/11 Truth movements either do not know that or they are purposely omitting that bit of fact.

    Most 9/11 truth movements are so scattered they often can’t agree on anything which is part of the divide and conquer plan.

    • Dear Mr. Kyle,

      I agree that cognitive infiltrators have been employed to sow the seeds of confusion. But I think you are out-of-line to call them “liberal shills”.

      My experience with “conservative shills” is that their cognitive dissonance runs high in ignoring the true connotations of the 9/11 evidence. In cases, they benefit from the status quo that the neo-con’s conned us into, so I’ve seen them play the monkey on many occasions to squirm out of admitting anything wrong in either the ends or the means. This same mindset and a (false) superiority complex also allows them to rationalize that it would be good to fuck with them “lib-tards,” so they fake their bent and act other games.

      Both sides of the same political coin pay people “to act the part” particularly if media is to be present. [It's been proven that in 2000 in Florida when "angry citizens" supposedly protested in front of cameras at county doors to stop the vote and other shit, they were paid Republican Operatives.]

      //

  20. I can’t imagine Muslims who have NEVER flown a REAL commercial jet liner being able to turn at such sharp angles as described in the flight plan to hit a specific part of the Pentagon.

    I wonder if the pilots might have been paid to crash the plane or it might have been a stolen military plane that the government is too embarrassed to admit because doing so would open a whole new can of worms in terms of military security which I bet in many places is actually poor despite claims otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s