Dump ‘irrelevant’ Pentagon research on 9/11, stick to the Twin Towers: Chandler and Cole statement

By Craig McKee

Stonehenge, Angkor Wat, Machu Pichu, and the Pyramids of Giza: all of these ancient sites are shrouded in mystery and continue to fascinate students of archaeology to this day.

The Pentagon.

Not ancient, but still shrouded in mystery following the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And some students of 9/11 are content to have it stay that way.

Okay, the analogy is a bit heavy handed. But the reaction of some – particularly those critical of the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the building – continues to puzzle and anger me.

Researchers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole released a statement last month on the Pentagon that condemns the work of Citizen Investigation Team (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole). CIT contends that the flight path reported by witnesses is inconsistent with the plane knocking over the five light poles that allegedly fell that day. They also believe the actual flight path would not fit with the plane hitting the building at all and that explosives had to have been planted inside the building.

Chandler and Cole think we should leave the Pentagon alone because the government holds all the cards, and the public thinks the military has the right to keep secrets. I think this line of thinking is beyond bizarre. This approach also involves attacking any contention about the Pentagon event that can’t be proved scientifically.

I agree on one level that we have to be careful, but there is a big difference between speculation like that and the case being made by CIT and others who don’t buy the official Pentagon story.

I believe that we in the Truth movement should be trying to show how virtually every aspect of the official story of 9/11 is full of holes and can’t be defended. But Chandler, Cole and their supporters think the best strategy for breaking the story is to ignore any of these holes that are in the least controversial or scientifically unproven and concentrate on one main thing: that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down in a controlled demolition.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a great point to work on. The buildings were certainly demolished with explosives of some kind, and this shows that it would have to have been an inside job. Another non-controversial item is the fact that the U.S. military must have stood down and let the supposedly hijacked planes reach their targets.

But what originally convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job was that all of the official story did not stand up to scrutiny. Even where there wasn’t scientific proof, there was often enough doubt to justify a new investigation.

So the anti-CIT crowd takes this position: the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77. Wreckage is consistent with a Boeing 757 hitting the building. Five light poles were knocked down by the plane. One of them impaled Lloyde England’s cab windshield without scratching the hood. We know this because Lloyde is a senior citizen and not believing him would simply not be polite. We enthusiastically back up Mike Walter’s account of the plane’s wings “folding in” so that they follow the fuselage into the building.

The Chandler/Cole statement, posted on 911Blogger, received gushing praise from their usual group of supporters of the Pentagon official story. These individuals, who attack CIT and profess to be concerned about the image of the Truth movement, routinely call those who disagree with them delusional, liars, government agents, and much more. This approach, they seem to feel, is beneficial to how the public sees the movement.

CIT responded with a long and detailed refutation of the piece (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2011_02_03-response-to-chandler-cole.html). I won’t try to represent their refutations here; I suggest you read both the original statement and the CIT response and make up your own mind.

The first thing that struck me about the C&C statement was that they listed the Pentagon anomalies that they feel “have gotten some of the least attention.” They then listed things that have actually gotten the most attention. In fact, all of the items they raised have been the subjects of posts on this blog. Not a good start.

They then went on to make a factually incorrect statement that there was “nearly unanimous testimony” saying that the plane followed the south path, clipped the light poles, and then hit the building. I guess the people interviewed in National Security Alert are the “nearly” part? None of the CIT haters have addressed to my satisfaction how all these witnesses could be so wrong about the north vs. south side flight path.

I realize some are contending (including Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) that there are witnesses who refute the CIT position and that CIT’s film National Security Alert doesn’t reflect the proportion of witnesses who saw one or the other. Regardless, how do you explain the witnesses in the film? Were they all mistaken? The method of questioning in the film seemed to be clear and fair enough to me. The contention of C&C that the questioning was leading is just silly. Did the interviewees misunderstand any of the questions? Which ones? How did this mislead the viewers of the film?

Chandler and Cole make the incredible statement that the public allows the military the right to keep secrets, so we’re never going to get the public support needed to push for answers about the Pentagon. I had to read this one more than once. The government has the proof, but people will agree they don’t have to give it to us, therefore we shouldn’t pursue the question. Huh? What happened to demanding answers first? Do we have to do polling before we push for the truth? They go on to say:

“Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.”

If you believe the official contention as they seem to, then what is being covered up exactly? If you accept that a 757 hit the building, why would they withhold the plentiful video evidence. Chandler and Cole even discuss the hiding of this evidence; they just don’t explain the contradiction.

“Fortunately the evidence at the World Trade Center makes the investigation at the Pentagon almost irrelevant. If anything essentially new (and verifiable) can be discovered at the Pentagon, fine, but the sparseness of information and the thoroughness of the cover-up at the Pentagon makes it an unlikely venue for significant new findings.”

It’s anything but irrelevant. If we grant the government’s case that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, it makes it much more difficult to get the public to doubt the whole official story. We have to fire on all cylinders. We need to make the best case possible that a real investigation is needed because the whole story is nonsense.

“On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?”

Truly wild conspiracy theories? These guys are even using the language of the government. They equate the debate about the Pentagon with space lasers at the WTC? In the beginning, “bombs in the towers” was considered to be a “truly wild conspiracy theory.” As to the media circus nonsense, since when are we in the public relations business? First we’re sampling public opinion before we say anything, then we’re trying to manage the press reaction.

I think the more doubt that can be cast on the official story, the better. And the efforts of the Building What? campaign in New York City are great because they seek to open the door to further investigation. They don’t contend that Building 7 is the only area of inquiry, just a great starting point.

The people who believe that the study of the towers’ collapse is where the best hope lies should certainly focus on that. But they should stop whining about CIT. It’s counterproductive and, frankly, suspicious.


  1. Proving that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while, David Chandler’s right about the “CIT,” but he also claims that blowing out the corner columns in the WTC towers would be a good way to collapse them, so he clearly has no idea how they were constructed. Some of my other problems with him and his “research” are posted at this link:
    Collapse times aren’t evidence of a controlled demolition in the first place, but he thinks they are, with no supporting evidence at all. Why would anyone take a guy seriously who claims that columns having nothing to do with supporting the floors, or anything but themselves and the facade in front of them, would cause a whole building to collapse?
    His knowledge of structural engineering and building construction is non-existent.

    1. I agree the corner columns weren’t supporting the building. To bring it down you’d have to take out the core columns. A “pancake” collapse wouldn’t do it; explosives would.

      Obviously I don’t think Chandler is right about CIT for the reasons stated in my article.

  2. The “CIT” nonsense is easily refuted by the overwhelming evidence of AA 77’s wreckage and contents inside the Pentagon, the numerous eyewitness accounts of the airliner flying in and crashing there, the fact that ATC tracked it to that location, and the fact that American Airlines paid undisclosed millions to victims not covered by the 9/11 VCF, among other things. Quote mining a few eyewitnesses for insignificant discrepancies doesn’t negate solid evidence.
    Chandler’s wrong for too many reasons to list here, but claiming that the corner columns had anything to do with keeping the towers standing shows just how clueless he is. Regarding the core columns, they were all recovered from the debris with no signs of explosive cuts or incendiary melting on their ends, and ~50 stories of core framing stood for 15 or more seconds after each tower’s collapse was otherwise complete, so it’s pretty obvious that nothing was planted on them. The tower collapses also both started above the 78th floor sky lobbies, where there were only a half dozen or so elevators, and they were only adjacent to 3 or 4 core columns, so Gage’s claim that his imaginary C/D was done through elevators is foolishness.
    236 of the 283 columns in each tower were in plain sight, and most videos clearly show that the collapses started when they could no longer support the ~60,000 or ~125,000 tons above them. It simply isn’t possible to blow up something secretly in front of thousands of live eyewitnesses, and millions who saw the videos, nor was it even possible to hide anything on them, assuming you got it past at least two layers of security, since almost all of the perimeter columns were in leased tenant spaces.
    Tough break for the 9/11 “truth movement.” 🙂

    Here’s a section through a typical tower perimeter column:

    Here’s a photo of them during the steel erection:

    1. Where is the overwhelming evidence of wreckage inside the Pentagon. I’m not willing to take the government’s word for it. Just saying there’s evidence doesn’t make it so. Which pieces of wreckage have been conclusively connected to Flight 77 with serial numbers? And Air Traffic Control didn’t know it was Flight 77, they thought it was a military plane when it appeared on radar near Washington and then executed the near-impossible 330-degree spiral into the building.

      1. Have you asked American Airlines what happened to their property, Craig? Hani Hanjour received a commercial pilot certificate from the FAA in April, 1999, and steering a 757 in near-perfect weather conditions after it’s already airborne just isn’t all that difficult, even in 330-degree spirals. If he hadn’t misjudged the approach altitude, this rather routine turn while descending wouldn’t have been necessary. Although the CVR had no recoverable data on it, the FDR did, and was found inside the Pentagon with the other wreckage of AA 77. The crash altitude is “too high” because the 9/11 “truth movement” ignored the time delay in digital recorders.
        Pretty tough to fake all of this, and I honestly have no idea why you think anyone would even try:

        1. Yes, why indeed. Why would anyone want to mislead the world about this event? If everything is just as the government says it is, why would you need deception?

          American Airlines is not going to give us the definite answer to what happened with Flight 77. The fact that they paid off proves nothing. How about sticking to the actual evidence? Hanjour got a certificate but was not deemed competent enough to rent a Cessna in August 2001. So are you a pilot? You know that flying a 757 isn’t difficult? Nonsense. Show me one actual pilot who is prepared to say that the manoeuvre he pulled off that day was easy. It sounds just you were in the cockpit with him. He misjudged the approach, did he? I thought hitting the building was so easy. Really this is all ridiculous.

      2. Hanjour and the other 3 hijacker/pilots all trained in Boeing simulators in the US, and all had commercial pilot certificates issued by the FAA. All 4 could fly Boeing wide-bodied twins once they were airborne, but Hanjour reportedly couldn’t fly Cessnas, and probably couldn’t do a triple Salchow, double toe loop either.
        You’re correct that ATC initially thought AA 77 was a military plane, and asked a Minnesota ANG C-130 to tail it. The crew reported back that it was a commercial airliner. ATC was basing its speculation on the speed and altitude of the plane, since airliners aren’t allowed to fly at those speeds at low altitude.
        The wreckage inside the Pentagon was witnessed by thousands of people, and they’re easy to contact with the information provided at this link:
        Every organization listed there that I searched has a web site, phone numbers, etc.

        1. I’m sorry, but you’re really reaching now. You suggest being able to fly a Cessna is totally unrelated to being able to fly a 757. But you think he could do the more difficult of these but not the other, even though he was enrolled in flight school. He briefly, and I mean briefly, spent some time in a simulator. But your suggestion that it is easy to fly a 757 once you’re airborne is beyond incredible.

          And the wreckage viewed by thousands of people: I realize there are Pentagon employees who say they saw plane debris and bodies in airline seats. It’s hard to accept this as enough given that I’m accusing the Pentagon of being an active participant in a false-flag operation. I want to see a photo (yes, I’ve seen the alleged landing gear) or better still, a video tape! I won’t ever believe your thousands of witnesses until I have some actual proof. You like proof, don’t you?

      3. I love proof, Craig, so can you prove that firefighters and other first responders from numerous nearby communities were all Pentagon employees? There’s a list of the groups representing over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11 at this link, along with 130+ live eyewitnesses, most of whom were and still are civilians, who saw AA 77 fly in at high speed, and most saw it crash into the Pentagon:


        I’d also like to know how briefly you think people have to train in Boeing simulators to receive a commercial pilot certificate from the FAA, and whether you think they need to know how to fly Cessnas or hang gliders with proficiency in order to steer an airborne 757 or 767, after seeking and getting specific flight training for those Boeing models. Do you also think that steering a commuter train is proportionally more difficult than operating a motorcycle, based on the respective sizes of each vehicle? Since there’s no indication that Hanjour, Jarrah, Atta, and al-Shehhi were training to become commercial airline pilots, do you have any thoughts on why they were in Boeing simulators in the years just prior to 9/11 in the first place? A hobby, perhaps?

        1. I don’t believe they were all Pentagon employees, so there’s no need for me to try and prove this. I gather you really want me to explain how all these neutral and uninvolved witnesses would go along with the big cover story. I think this is a bogus question – and anyway, I’d prefer that you make your point directly if you want a response. The argument that too many people would have to go along with the plan holds no water for me; in fact, I see it as a red herring.

          Yes, a deception of this kind would be very complex and would involve a lot of people. I realize this. It wouldn’t require that everyone who got near the building be involved, however. As I’ve stated, eyewitness accounts are part of the evidence but they aren’t enough on their own, especially when the intention of the Pentagon event was to fool people into believing that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

          I think they were in flight simulators to fool gullible people into thinking they knew how to fly airliners into specific targets.
          Your questions and your examples seem purposely mischievous. I’ve never driven a train before, but I’m sure there’s more to it than just staying on the tracks. But a 757 doesn’t use tracks, does it? This is a ridiculous argument. You think Hanjour could fly a 757 into this target when he couldn’t rent a Cessna. How many professional pilots would back you up on that?

      4. How many real, verified professional pilots, including colleagues of the ones murdered on 9/11/01, are in the 9/11 “truth movement,” Craig, and how does that number compare to the total number of professional pilots in just the US alone? Why do you think 4 young Arab men spent all of that time and effort in simulators just “to fool gullible people into thinking they knew how to fly airliners into specific targets,” especially when there’s overwhelming proof of it that now even includes some DNA matches?


        No one who hasn’t had sufficient training in Cessnas is allowed to rent one and fly it himself, so why would anyone have rented one to Hanjour?

        Too many people DID “have to go along with it,” and I’ve posted a link leading to thousands of them, mostly civilians with no prior connection to the Pentagon. What was found scattered all over the inside of the building on and after AA 77 was deliberately crashed into it is irrefutable proof all by itself, and you have ~8000 different people you could contact and ask. How many of them have you even tried to talk to? They trump any quote-mined, CIT-alleged discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of the plane’s flight path for the 3 or 4 seconds that people near the Pentagon saw it.

      5. For a time there was testimony on the web by the very first camera crew {Navy} that entered the Pentagon after the event and took still photos of the area.
        Reading the transcript the officer in charge of showing these photos to Rumsfeld and others states unequivically that there was absolutely no signs of any aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon.

        This took meeting place the evening of 9/11.

        Of course I would have to go back through all of the files on my downloaded CDs to give names and numbers. And I am not so organized in my new situation to do so.
        But that meeting was mentioned on the web in the weeks following the event.

        This is remarkable in light of susequent photos allegedly showing parts of aircraft seats and burned victims that came to light on some debunking sites a couple years later.

        As all other known evidence indicates that there was never an airplane crash at the Pentegon, I remain puzzled by the new so called photographic evidence.
        Let me clarify, not so much puzzled as suspicious of after-the-fact staging.

    2. Mr. Albury,

      What is your point? What is your bottom-line? What is your agenda?

      Are you saying everything we were told in the OGCT is the truth? Are there no anomalies about 9/11 worth looking into? Is there nothing damning in the run-up, day of, or aftermath of 9/11 that does not add up?

      Or even better, please enlighten this forum in a bullet-list regarding all (or the top-10) things where you disagree with or disbelieve the OGCT.

      P.S. I am still eagerly waiting your blog. It appears you save your work, so it should not be a problem for you to quickly populate it with your exchanges that make whatever case you make.

      P.P.S. Criticism of specific points someone brings up is valid, although it should be back with a solid understanding of the material in order to point out where it is wrong. Smears against their person suggesting what they know or don’t know (because you don’t effing know what someone else knows) will not be tolerated, particularly when you use it as a lame attempt to get a whole class of information taken down. Chandler kicked your butt in his exchange and has high school physics videos that you can’t explain. Or rather, you cherry-pick things like squibs-on-corners and ignore the proof of Newtonian physics of what should be expected yet wasn’t observed and of what the implication is of what was observed.

      1. What’s your point, bottom line, agenda, etc., Senor? Your contrived anomalies in the mainstream account of 9/11 are riddled with inaccuracies, and your “theories” are so silly that most don’t even make sense.
        Chandler obviously knows little to nothing about construction, controlled demolition, or structural engineering, and made a very embarrassing physics error in his email to me, which he “Replied All” to my email to him that was copied to a number of people. When I politely explained to him that ~81′ was the calculated free fall distance from rest for his precious ~2.25-second interval, which is clearly explained by NIST’s collapse modeling, not the ~2.25-second distance for an object that had already been falling at a reduced acceleration for ~1.75 seconds, and that NIST’s estimated ~105′ distance was closer to being correct, he quickly found an excuse not to respond any further, pretending to be all insulted or something, which should give you some idea of his character, honesty, and intellectual courage. He hardly “kicked [my] butt” by hightailing it away from an honest discussion, so I suggest that you read the exchange between us again, since you apparently haven’t so far. I posted it at this link on 2/18/10:
        He doesn’t do well with those of us who don’t drink the Kool-Aid, but his pseudoscientific nonsense sounds good on videos with no one around to question it.
        btw, be sure to donate to his “research” at the links he’s provided. 🙂

      2. The dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

        When I politely explained to him that ~81′ was the calculated free fall distance from rest for his precious ~2.25-second interval, which is clearly explained by NIST’s collapse modeling, not the ~2.25-second distance for an object that had already been falling at a reduced acceleration for ~1.75 seconds, and that NIST’s estimated ~105′ distance was closer to being correct, he quickly found an excuse not to respond any further…

        Doesn’t matter how polite you were if you are wrong, and I’d be looking for an excuse not to respond further, as well. Mr. Chandler was probably thinking, “Tsk, tsk. Probably an adult version of one of the students who failed — nay, didn’t have the math chops to contemplate taking — a high school physics class.” Shall I break it down for you?

        You wrote:

        ~81′ was the calculated free fall distance from rest for his precious ~2.25-second interval

        Your precious 81 ft is an absolutely meaningless quantity in relation to the real world event of 9/11, because neither Chandler nor NIST say that the Stage 1 time period was t0 = 0 [sec] (at rest, V0=0 [ft/sec]) to t1 = 2.25 [sec]. Had they said that, your correctly calculated precious 81 ft would have real world meaning.

        No, the precious ~2.25-second interval for both Chandler and NIST was for t1 = 1.75 [sec] to t2 = 4 [sec], which is Stage 2. As you correctly point out, Stage 2 starts with the mass already having an initial velocity (v1), because it fell at an acceleration less than gravity for 1.75 [sec] (e.g., the building’s structure resisted the falling mass). How far did it fall in Stage 1? About one-and-a-half stories, or 18.5 [ft].

        Want to know where Chandler and NIST get the estimated ~105 [ft] for Stage 2, or distances for Stage 1 and Stage 3? They simply looked at various videos, scaled building features of the video with known quantities (like floor spacing), and calculated from the plotted pixel points frame by frame (e.g., over time) the distance that Stages 1 through 3 fell respectively. Not rocket science; not even high school physics. Junior high algebra and observation of data points.

        The Albury-bot wrote:

        He hardly “kicked [my] butt”…

        Agreed. Chandler hardly “kicked [your] butt”. You kicked your own Albury-bot-butt by coming into the discussion with inaccurate assumptions and false attribution to others statements (both Chandler and NIST). In the parlance of disinformation, this is called a “strawman argument”.

        The Albury-bot continued:

        … by hightailing it away from an honest discussion.

        As is demonstrated above, it was not “an honest discussion”, and the dishonesty was on the part of Albury-bot. I don’t, and most people won’t, blame Mr. Chandler for “hightailing it away.”

        You wrote in some other posting how you had been banned from most 9/11 Forums. Every wonder why? Could it be your dishonest tactics as exhibited above… and in nearly every posting you’ve made to Mr. McKee’s blog?

        Your entertainment factor is waning, Albury-bot.

        Before you go (either at your own volition or McKee’s hand), please enlighten this forum in a bullet-list regarding all (or the top-10) things where you disagree with or disbelieve the OGCT. As a bot, you’ve already ducked this once. Let’s see how many times your algorithms will have you continue to ignore it.

      3. I suggest that you carefully read the exchange between Chandler and me, Senor, since you apparently still haven’t. I posted it at this link on 2/18/10:
        Chandler made the completely erroneous claim in his email that NIST’s estimate of ~105′ was wrong, and that it should have been 81′, completely ignoring the ~1.75 seconds that the top of the parapet wall had already fallen at a reduced acceleration. I corrected him and made some other observations about his claims, and he replied with a flimsy, transparent excuse not to discuss anything with me further. He’s an intellectual coward and total fraud.
        Collapse times aren’t proof of what causes a structural failure, and it’s absurd to claim that they are, especially when going into that much detail for such a worthless, straw man argument.

  3. Craig, you are making a false dichotomy and a straw man to say that CIT’s detractors are “attacking any contention about the Pentagon event that can’t be proved”. That’s not true. We’re attacking CIT’s lousy ethics, bad logic, use of sophistry, and cowardly failure to seek evidence to support their flyover hypothesis.

    Your claim that CIT “refuted” Cole and Chandler is also not true. CIT provided a rambling snow job which nobody, not even you, is willing to discuss point by point.

    The fact that more credible and less-discussed Pentagon anomalies are featured on your blog hardly shows they are getting “the most attention”. With all due respect, your blog is not getting 300,000 hits like CIT’s youtubes and these issues were ignored on Jesse’s TV show.

    Do we have to do polling before we push for the truth? We have to put forth the most credible arguments if we wish to be effective in achieving a position of influence in society. Conspiracy theories are repulsive anyway, and when they’re easily-debunked they hurt us.

    You think the more doubt that can be cast on the official story, the better. There are reasonable doubts, and there are unreasonable ones. Imagine a defense attorney telling the jury: “I have shown that the prosecutor has failed to prove his case, has exaggerated the reliability of his scientific evidence, has employed witnesses who are highly motivated to lie, and has glossed over essential issues. I have shown evidence that my client was nowhere near the scene of the crime, and had nothing to gain from it.”

    Pretty good, right? Reasonable doubts. Now imagine that the lawyer goes on: “Furthermore, I have shown that space aliens from the Planet Xylthor had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to frame my client.” Unreasonable doubts sink the case. I’m not whining about CIT, I’m denouncing them.

    Albury, collapse times are certainly evidence of controlled demolition, and if you knew the First Law of Thermodynamics you’d know that.

    Certainly all the core columns were recovered from the debris–and then they were quickly recycled before experts could examine them, and as a result NIST has only 236 samples and none of the core samples show heating above 480 F.

    I suspect that Chandler’s point on corner columns has to do with maintaining collapse symmetry, so I suggest you consider that.

    At the 78th floor sky lobby there were not “half a dozen elevators”–there were 38 in each tower. You’re making stuff up. I don’t like people who lie about 9/11, which is why I don’t like Ranke.

    1. It sure seems to me that anything that can’t be proved is rejected out of hand. None of you is even willing to consider that Lloyde England might not be telling the truth. You’re more worried about being mean to this nice old man that you are about getting at the truth about the light poles. This hurts your credibility in my book.

      Perhaps I should have said the CIT rebutted Chandler and Cole. I leave it to the reader of their response to make up their own minds about whether they answered the points raised by Chandler and Cole effectively. You guys love to say things like “rambling snow job” as if that makes it true. And yet you knock me for not discussing the issue point by point. I responded to C & C the way I felt was required, not the way you’d want me to. I certainly don’t plan to go over CIT’s long and detailed response point by point. Why don’t you give specific points that you feel are wrong and we can go from there?

      On anomalies and my blog: I did NOT say that being featured on my blog meant they were getting the most attention. You’re really nitpicking here. Hani Hanjour’s unlikely piloting effort on that day is a central question. The lack of major pieces of wreckage outside the Pentagon is another central question. The choice to hit the relatively empty section of the building is a central question. Why Norman Mineta suggested that Cheney ordered a stand-down is certainly critical. And how the Pentagon could be so undefended is certainly central to the whole event.

      Conspiracy theories are repulsive? What the hell does this mean? You play into the other side’s hands when you support the idea that conspiracy theories are somehow an inherently negative thing.

      Here’s my point on CIT. You have the right to denounce them. But the preoccupation that you and others have with CIT brings the very attention you seem to fear. These repeated attacks seem over the top to me. Protesting too much, as it were. People have the right to have opinions and theories; it’s people like you who continually reinforce the idea that we all have to be unanimous to be credible. This is doing much more damage to the movement than any one theory (correct or not) could do.

  4. I consider that Lloyde might be lying. It’s even possible that he smashed his own windshield and made up the light pole story–not because he’s a 9/11 perp but because he thought the story might get him on TV or he might get a movie made about himself. (Though if you look at the damage to the interior of the car–the dash, the seat, and the back seat, the light pole story looks pretty convincing.)

    When I lack sufficient information to make a solid conclusion, I decline to make one. I’m sure as hell not going to call him a liar unless I can prove it. I’ll call Ranke a liar. I’ll call Kevin Barrett a liar. I’ll call Condi a liar and Shyam Sunder.

    CIT’s “detailed” response is a rambling snow job. The same technique NIST uses to obfuscate the fact that they can’t prove their case and their investigation is full of holes.

    There are pictures of major wreckage outside: a big hunk of skin, some heavy aluminum that may have been the wing box. Inside there’s a landing gear and an engine rotor. And there’s a hell of a lot of aluminum confetti.

    Conspiracy theories are repulsive. That’s my experience from talking to people about 9/11 for years. You can get them talking about holes in the official story, unanswered questions. The minute you put it in the context of a conspiracy theory they get a funny look in their eye and walk away. And they may never talk to you again.

    People have the right to opinions and theories. Dr. Wood can continue to put up her DEW stuff and ask why there’s so much dirt being piled on Ground Zero (to snuff the fires?) and nobody much cares. But CIT’s flyover theory was on Jesse Ventura’s TV show a few weeks ago and it’s getting a lot of attention it doesn’t deserve, attention that is hurting the movement’s credibility. I’m not saying we have to be unaninous. But CIT’s persistent, continual, belligerent inability to respond to rational criticism and to correct errors makes them very poor representatives of the Truth movement, IMHO.

    1. Well, let’s start with assessing whether his story is credible before we worry about motive. His story is important to the official account because it establishes the flight path. And based on the work of CIT, we do know what the interior damage to the cab was. And there’s no way it’s consistent with that pole being there. The pole is curved at the end that is supposed to have been impaled in the back seat. Completely ridiculous.

      I think that you and all your fellow “CIT fetish” attack dogs should get off this subject for a while. YOU are damaging the movement more than anyone. Why don’t you trust people to assess the evidence for themselves? CIT isn’t representative of the Truth movement; they represent themselves. It just happens that a lot of people agree with them. And others don’t. You repeat the “rambling snow job” accusation with no rationale – again.

      The wreckage you describe is a fraction of that plane. You can’t call what was found outside “major.” Surely you see this. Where are the two complete engines with the serial numbers? Why didn’t the engines damage the facade? I don’t buy any of this for a second. No reasonable person should.

  5. AA 77 was going 500+ mph when it crashed into the Pentagon, Craig, so pieces of it would have to have stopped and reversed direction to have wound up SW of the wall it hit. The straight-line decreasing damage pattern inside was consistent with a large, heavy plane losing KE as it was stopped by the layers of walls in the building, but planted explosives or a missile would have ejected debris in all directions.
    How could England’s taxi have been hit by a light pole in any other scenario which included the other 4 poles, and who at the scene saw anything else happen? There were over 130 live eyewitnesses who reported seeing a large airliner, none who saw a missile, and additional thousands who witnessed the wreckage inside. Fooling all of those people isn’t even remotely possible.

    1. Your entertainment factor is waning, Mr. Albury-bot.

      Before you go (either at your own volition or Mr. McKee’s hand), please enlighten this forum in a bullet-list regarding all (or the top-10) things where you disagree with or disbelieve the OGCT. As a bot, you’ve already ducked this once. Let’s see how many times your algorithms will have you continue to ignore it.

  6. I didn’t offer my opinions here to entertain either one of you, Craig, and simply joined the discussion because you expressed an interest in the truth about 9/11. What you seem to find reasonable from “Senor El Once” is that it would be perfectly ok to ban someone for posting facts on here, that the mainstream account of 9/11 is a big grab bag that you can refute with no evidence at all, and that anyone who can’t find something substantively wrong with the NIST findings or the 9/11 Commission Report is missing something. I’m not a bot; I’m a US citizen who’s fed up with people who invent their own facts about the worst terrorist attack on our country in its history, and slander and libel people who had nothing to do with the planning or execution of it. Instead of personally attacking me, hinting that I might be banned here for politely and factually disagreeing with you, Senor, and others, and obfuscating with specious questions I’ve already answered, please feel free to tell me what you think I should disbelieve in the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports, and why. I’d also like to know what you disbelieve from Gage, Griffin, Loose Change, Ryan, Harrit, Fetzer, the “CIT,” and others in your 9/11 “truth movement,” now that I’ve posted numerous reasons why you should.

    1. How about if I ask you/accuse you Albury of being an agent using the cognitive dissonance techniques espoused by Cass Sunstein?

      You have, as others have already pointed out, the perfect MO of such a shill.

      You will not answer simple questions, instead you start the theme song and your carousel begins going in circles yet again.

      Being an expert on perception manipulation and the argumentative techniques of propagandists, I have to say that you are literally glowing and flashing red lights.
      I’d say your gig is just about up and your supervisor should be called in for assistance.


  7. Craig-
    I noticed that I may have inadvertently accused you of the same tactics as Senor’s. I addressed both of your recent comments at once, but was only directing some of it at him. You haven’t resorted to personal attacks or name-calling, and have allowed me to post freely on here, which is highly unusual on “forums” run by the 9/11 “truth movement,” where I’ve been banned several dozen times by various people. Loose Change’s moderator immediately banned me for asking someone who’d just libeled Silverstein why his 12 different insurance companies all paid him a total of $4.68 billion if he’d publicly admitted to blowing up his own property, proudly announcing to everyone that my question wasn’t “sincere enough” so he had to ban me permanently for asking it. Here’s another example of how it usually goes, but this guy waited a whole 6 days, while he and his toadies were tossing petty insults, name-calling, obfuscating, and occasionally threatening to ban me most of that time. The line through “Albury Smith” means that I’m banned for life: 🙂
    Apologies for giving the wrong impression.

    1. The dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

      The line through “Albury Smith” means that I’m banned for life: 🙂
      Apologies for giving the wrong impression.

      This is just too precious! I am still laughing.

      The Albury-bot joins Let’s Roll Forums on April 17, 2010 under the name “Albury Smith”, and before his very first day of posting is finished, his discussion participants were already affectionately addressing the bot under the formal name “Agent Smith.” And just after his 58th postings on April 22, Albury Smith gets a line through his name: banned for life.

      The database archeologists are going to enjoy traipsing around after Albury, where in this same thread as above we learn that Albury got himself banned from the “Loose Change Forum.” Why was he banned? “Banned albury and alibury for creating a sock puppet.” But then it comes out that it wasn’t just “Loose Change”, but “Let’s Roll” where Albury is proven to have used a sockpuppet.

      Why does “sockpuppet” ring a bell? Why is discussing 9/11 with Albury so much like riding a Merry-go-round”? Mr. McKee’s blog isn’t so old where the names of past discussion participants don’t seem familiar with present ones.

      Mr. Albury, if you are so concerned about expressing the truth about 9/11, you’ll need to maybe learn a lesson from your history of banishment… like maybe establishing your own blog on WordPress or Blogger where you’ll have home court advantage. Like from the “Fields of Dreams” movie, if you build it, they will come.

      Yep, Mr. McKee and I will be your biggest fans. Why it would even be a huge help you us! Next round of govt trolls we get here will be given the URL to your blog, so that you can commiserate and conspire (or not) as you desire.

      1. I did learn a lesson from my history of banishment, Senor; I learned that while most in your 9/11 “truth movement” whine about the fact that the MSM ignores them, they refuse to discuss anything intelligently when confronted with dissenting views backed up with facts, and that some even think it’s ok, or even as funny as you do, to silence anyone who makes a polite and sincere attempt to reason with them. I was banned for asking a very logical and relevant question, but one that the Loose Change crowd obviously couldn’t answer honestly, and I signed back on under a different identity just long enough to express my disgust over the moderator’s intellectual cowardice and blatant dishonesty. I did it again when I confronted him on Phil’s dog-and-pony show, and he ducked the issue there too.

        Instead of chuckling with glee over the fact that people in your 9/11 “truth movement” have to resort to such shabby and disgraceful tactics, and making all of your replies to my posts here personal attacks on me, why don’t you offer some semblance of an attempt to discuss 9/11 topics as an adult, since Craig has been kind enough not to sink to the level of Phil Jayhan at “Let’s Roll,” or “JFK” and the Loose Change “forum,” to name two of many?

        Despite the bogus claim by someone on Jayhan’s ridiculous farce of a message board that I was using multiple IDs, until being banned for no legitimate reason, I had only posted there using one, and since you have the link, please feel free to point out any of my commentary that you feel is dishonest or incorrect. You claim to be keenly interested in the truth about 9/11, so why not at least try to stay on topic, since it isn’t about you or me?

  8. Craig, Lloyde’s story doesn’t establish the official flight path. Most people never heard of Lloyde England until CIT tried to make a poster boy out of him. The downed lightpoles establish the official flight path.

    The damage to the cab is absolutely consistent with a pole being in there. The dash has a dent, the front seatback is pushed down, and the back seat shows a rip and distortion that suggests that the end of the pole pushed between the seat back and the seat cushion. It would be nice to have pictures from the trunk too, but CIT didn’t bother to take those.

    CIT is calling for people to harass and intimidate and threaten public figures if they refuse to publicize CIT’s DVD. If they actually got anybody to do that they would very possibly generate headlines, and the news media would certainly associate that nonsense with the truth movement. CIT does represent the truth movement.

    CIT’s “refutation is a rambling snow job. Just the fact that it responded to a 2000-word article with well over 20,000 words, and the fact that is is praised as detailed and thorough by people who won’t cite a single point in it provides a rationale for it being a snow job.

    Albury, if your behavior in this forum is any guide, the reason you get banned in 9/11 forums is not because you have dissenting opinions, but because you say things that are not true. Untruthful statements mislead the poorly-informed and the better- informed must waste their time correcting them, and so they are highly disruptive.

    1. Listen, Brian. The damage to the cab (which we know about thanks to the thorough efforts of CIT), is not even remotely consistent with a huge, curved light pole wedging itself into the back seat! You note that the dash has a dent but you’re unconcerned that the hood hasn’t got a scratch on it. I don’t get it.

      You’re right, the cab doesn’t establish the flight path; it does reinforce it, however. Long before I’d heard anything about north of Citgo flight paths, I knew about the pole hitting the cab. This helped me at first not to doubt the flight path. This is what I believe it was intended to do.

      You wrote: “CIT is calling for people to harass and intimidate and threaten public figures if they refuse to publicize CIT’s DVD. If they actually got anybody to do that they would very possibly generate headlines, and the news media would certainly associate that nonsense with the truth movement. CIT does represent the truth movement.”

      Please explain this comment. I want specifics. Which figures, what threats? These are serious accusations. You guys also talk about CIT generating bad headlines all the time. I don’t see any headlines in the mainstream media about 9/11 being an inside job. No headlines, good or bad. And how do you conclude that CIT represents the Truth movement. I’m sure they only wish to represent themselves as a part of the movement.

      You have now called their response to Chandler/Cole a “rambling snow job” three times in your comments on this blog. Just repeating something doesn’t make it true. You’ve made the point, and I will no longer be publishing those three words, at least not in one sentence. The length of their response to the C&C statement means nothing; it’s the substance that’s important.

      1. On Brian Good, and his never-ending repetition fallacies, that has been going on for a long time- see KP’s ‘spot on’ synopsis post from over one year ago:


        Also see the thread here:


        and many of the threads at 911oz that I have already linked to elsewhere on Mr. McKee’s blog.

        IMHO- the troll IS as the troll DOES (and he’s doing his same, mouldy old shtick here on Mr. McKee’s blog).

        There must be some reason why the troll was banned twice from 911oz (although Hereward seems quite fond of Vicky’s 911blogger and/or the ‘JREF light’ propaganda there lately).

      2. I was just re-reading the thread I linked to and just re-discovered this (IMHO) BRILLIANT post by KP on page 3 (post #55):

        KP: “I appreciate your efforts with Brian Good in the same way that I appreciate his tail keeping a mad dog occupied. I’d rather the dog was put down but at least while he’s chasing his tail, he’s not busy stalking people who have better things to do. ”


        I nearly laughed myself off my chair when I re-discovered the relevance and accuracy of that statement regarding ‘truebeleaguer” Good and his apparent 911oz enabler, Scott.

      3. Re: “truebeleaguer” Good’s ‘broken record’ “when the length is the only ‘substance’ ” whinging, a recent “CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 91st Edition” has 2610 pages.

        Is “punxsawtawney barney” Good going to claim that the 91st CRC Handbook is devoid of “substance” due to its 2610-page length?

        The obsessive maniac Good appears to mainly be interested in his own TrueFaction smear campaign agenda rather than ANY specific issues with the CIT refutation response to Chandler and Cole (since Good has failed repeatedly to mention ANY specific details other than the length of the CIT response itself).

        Back in middle school, I was required to read Bruce Catton’s Pulitzer Prize winning “A Stillness at Appomattox” about the US Civil War, which is 448 pages in the Anchor paperback version. Is “truebeleaguer” Good going to complain about the length of that as well?

        Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” too?

        1. Yes, this point about the length seems bizarre even for Mr. Good (nothing personal, Brian). And his challenge to me to point out things in the CIT response that I agree with is another indication that he wants others to do his legwork for him. I’ll comment on anything in the response, but I’m not going to be given homework assignments by those who’d rather read the Coles Notes version.

    2. Please feel free to “correct” even one statement I’ve made on here, Brian, at any of the articles where I’ve commented. I get banned on 9/11 “truth movement” web sites and “forums” for not drinking the Kool-Aid, which is pretty amusing coming from people who claim to be interested in the truth. Does it seem sufficiently sincere to you to very politely ask someone who had just libeled Larry Silverstein why 12 different insurers, at least 4 of which were foreign-based, all paid him a total of $4.68 BILLION if he publicly admitted to blowing up WTC 7? Not according to the Loose Change moderator, who immediately announced to everyone that he had to ban me because my question wasn’t “sincere enough.”
      They’re your folks, not mine, and I’ve been banned for even sillier reasons.

      1. Craig, the pole was the lower part and was not very much curved. I know CIT likes to push deceptive telephoto pictures, and one of those makes the pole look like a piece of elbow macaroni. It’s not true. That same picture makes it look like Lloyde’s cab is on the bridge, when other pictures show that it was south of the bridge.

        Look at CIT’s “Operation Accountability” program. They want people to take the NSA DVD to public officials and media figures, and then if these target people refuse to publicize the information, CIT wants the activists to harass these people and threaten them with Misprision of Treason actions.

        The length of CIT’s response to Cole/Chandler is certainly an issue when the length is the only “substance” that is ever cited. If you think there’s any substance whatsoever to any point in their response, please identify the point.

        Mrboz, the reason that I repeat myself is because when I ask a question, and Ranke or Aldo or Rob doesn’t answer it, I ask it again. And again and again and again and again. They won’t answer questions. An example here would be my repetition of the statement about the obfuscatory length of the CIT response to Cole and Chandler. I was hoping to provoke a specific defense of the response, and was unable to do so.

        Albury, I need look no further than the first post in this thread to find a silly untruth on your part: your claim that “Collapse times aren’t evidence of a controlled demolition”. That’s ludicrous. Maybe after some study of the first law of thermodynamics you will stop saying such stupid things.

        1. It doesn’t have to be that curved. Even with telephoto images, there’s no way that pole went straight in and stuck in the back seat without damaging the hood. But you aren’t really interested in having doubts about this crazy story, are you?

          The length of the CIT response has nothing to do with its validity. And I will not accept your assignment that I choose points of theirs to support. I support a great deal of what they wrote. And I took my own very clear position on the Gage and Chandler/Cole statements. If you disagree with the substance of what I wrote, then by all means let me know.

  9. Craig, did you mean to link to the Chandler & Cole piece on 9/11 Blogger a second time when you referenced the CIT refutation? Seems like you probably meant to link the CIT piece you were referencing (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/news/2011_02_03-response-to-chandler-cole.html)

    Anyhow, nice work once again with this article. You make a lot of good points about the Chandler & Cole piece as well as this phony “controversy” in general, and you do it succinctly. This includes your conclusion: “The people who believe that the study of the towers’ collapse is where the best hope lies should certainly focus on that. But they should stop whining about CIT. It’s counterproductive and, frankly, suspicious.”

    Regarding this… “None of the CIT haters have addressed to my satisfaction how all these witnesses could be so wrong about the north vs. south side flight path.”

    Exactly, cause they simply cannot be. It is so easy to see this when you watch the interviews, and it is so devastating to the notion that 9/11 was anything other than an “inside job” and black operation, that it’s easy to see why pretty much every infiltrator out there is coming out viciously and dishonestly attacking CIT and the north side/flyover evidence. (No, I’m not saying that everyone who criticizes or even attacks CIT is an infiltrator, people. However, I am saying that people who are infiltrators tend to attack CIT. There is definitely an element of counter-intelligence present.)

    Regarding this… “I realize some are contending (including Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) that there are witnesses who refute the CIT position and that CIT’s film National Security Alert doesn’t reflect the proportion of witnesses who saw one or the other.”

    Richard’s “friends” who have been “educating” him on this subject (who have now become his ghostwriters if I were to guess) don’t have any witnesses who could see the Citgo and saw the plane fly past the south side. If the plane was there there would be many. It’s that simple. Plus, no one had a better view than the people at the gas station, and they’re all 100% certain it was on the north side.

    1. You’re absolutely right about the link; thanks for catching that.

      You know, there’s fair criticism and even unfair criticism. But then there’s criticism that seems out of proportion with the subject being criticized. This is what I see here. If someone wants to challenge CIT’s evidence, they have that right, but when they attack everything CIT says with the same level of over-the-top vitriol (I’ve always wanted to use that word in a sentence), then it’s time to doubt their sincerity.

  10. Craig, how can you state so confidently that “there’s no way that pole went straight in and stuck in the back seat without damaging the hood.” Are you unable to eat soup without spilling it on your chin? Unable to walk through a door without bouncing off the wall? Why is there no way? It simply shoots through the windshield and lodges between the cushions of the back seat. What is so unbelievable about that?

    Certainly the length of the CIT’s report, more than ten times the length of the article to which it responded, gives cause for reasonable suspicions about its veracity.

    Here, for example, is what one structural engineer has to say about the NIST report:

    “Huebner, whose twenty-five years of structural engineering experience includes forensic investigation of structural collapses, compares NIST’s effort to a ‘college paper where you just keep adding [stuffing] to make the paper longer. Lots of pages of
    nothing! Definitely trying to cover up something.’”


    1. I’m sorry, but nothing you have said or are likely to say about the pole in the windshield tall tale is going to make it seem more possible. It’s not just unlikely, it’s a joke. You’re free to disagree if you wish.

      On the length of the CIT response: No one will take this argument seriously. The veracity of the response will and should be based on its content, not its length. Your criticism of the NIST report is not, I’m sure, based on the number of pages it takes to whitewash the subject.

  11. Craig, I have spent dozens of hours at tables in the street presenting 9/11 Truth in public. When you talk to the public you have to present yourself as well-informed, rational, and responsive. You have to answer all the questions you are given, and if you can’t answer a question, you have to admit it in a graceful manner. You can’t just talk for 30 minutes and then announce, after your interrogator has walked away, “see, I answered the question”. You can’t pack up your table and run away, screaming insults. You have to deal with it right there and then.

    So you learn pretty quick to stick to your strongest points. I challenge you to take the “Lloyde’s story is unbelievable” argument to the street. It is purely an argument from personal incredulity, one of the weakest arguments there is. A football can make some pretty strange bounces, and so can a 200-pound lightpole that’s caught in a jetwash. And you still haven’t dealt with the question: why would the psyop scriptwriters give LLoyde such a goofy script?

    For that matter I challenge you to take CIT’s theory to the street. Make some big graphics of the 13 orange flight paths, set up a table, sell the DVD. See what it gets you. We need to reach the American people. Sitting around talking to each other about nonsense is wasting our time.

    1. It is not an argument from personal incredulity. It is based on detailed interviews with England, and his account rests on his own credibility. You have no problem finding some positions “unbelievable” without having to make a detailed case; you seem to do it all the time. You reject video fakery, pods on planes and other things with no need to explain in detail why. Your unwillingness to doubt England’s account under any circumstances hurts your credibility.

      1. Craig, I’m perfectly willing to discuss England’s account. Your belief that it was unbelievable seemed to rest on the belief that the penetration of his cab by a lightpole was not believable. That is an argument from personal incredulity because you provide no evidence–no expert opinion, nothing–that it is not possible or even that it is unlikely.

        I already showed I am certainly willing to doubt England’s account. Maybe he broke his windshield with a tire iron to make a story and try to get on TV. The fact remains that CIT has not presented a plausible scenario for how the light poles could be planted without detection.

        1. No, I’m not saying a pole couldn’t hit a cab or penetrate its windshield. I’m saying that the account he gave is not credible: no hood damage, no witnesses, a silent man who helped pull the pole out, several credible witnesses to a north side approach, and physical damage to the building that is irreconcilable with a 757 hitting.

          By the way, England says he heard the crash as they were pulling the pole out of the car. See a problem with this?

          You say I present nothing that is even unlikely. The truth is you aren’t willing to listen to the fact that it’s all unlikely. And the idea that England would smash his own car with a 20-foot+ pole to get on TV is not even worth refuting.

      2. In your opinion, Craig, what would have been more difficult to accomplish; secretly knocking down and then very quickly inserting a large existing roadside light standard into a southbound vehicle on VA-27 at 9:37 AM in workday traffic, or making a bogus security video showing a 757 flying into the Pentagon, considering the expertise of the US government and the more than 4 years and 8 months they had to do the latter?

        1. I’m so flattered that you’re so anxious to pick my brain on these issues. I just wish I had a clue what your point was in linking these two questions. I don’t think anyone shoved a pole into Lloyde England’s cab. I don’t think a pole ever entered his cab. On the video, I have no faith in these images. They’ve clearly gone out of their way to provide us with ambiguous images that will just keep people arguing. If they wanted to clear up the doubts about the Pentagon, they could. The fact that they don’t tells me the real proof would blow the official story out of the air.

    2. That’s the beauty of Internet forums, Brian. I’ve posted plenty of questions here about 9/11 “truth movement” claims, and you’ve avoided commenting on any of them. You don’t have to “pack up your table and run away, screaming insults,” OR “deal with [them] right there and then,” all you have to do is ignore them and hope they’ll go away. In all fairness, 2 other people here have responded occasionally, but would rather discuss me instead of anything I’ve posted.

  12. Albury, I ignore you because your statement in your first post above that “Collapse times aren’t evidence of a controlled demolition” shows you to be someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Also I have encountered someone named Albury elsewhere on the internet who was also fact-averse and a time-waster.

    1. Great way to duck issues, Brian, but collapse times don’t indicate what caused a structural failure in a building, and it’s downright silly to claim they do. More from Dr. Dutch, another “time-waster” for sure:
      You can offer no plausible motive by anyone you’re libeling for adding to the damage done to the NYC buildings, Pentagon, people, airliners, etc. without even considering the collapses, have no supporting evidence for a C/D, and secretly blowing up huge burning buildings in major metropolitan areas is much more than unlikely; it’s completely impossible.
      If you started your Silverstein/FDNY “pull it” crap on the street with me and a big crowd of people to “educate,” you’d definitely “pack up your table and run away, screaming insults,” since you couldn’t deal with even one of the questions you’d be asked next.

      1. Albury, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Collapse times certainly indicate causes when the collapse times indicate free fall acceleration, and NIST says they do. Section 6.14.4 of NCSTAR1 says that the building section above came down “essentially in free fall” and Dr. Sunder tells NOVA the same thing, saying the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If you don’t understand that only deliberate demolition can generate a free-fall collapse, you’d better brush up on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There is only so much gravitational potential energy in the building. It takes work to break apart the structure, pulverize the concrete, heat up the air to form those giant dust clouds, mash the tubular columns–and all of that work slows down the process of destruction.

        I don’t libel people, Albury. It would only take one little lawsuit to completely spoil my day. Hitting the towers with airplanes was not sufficient to terrorize. That’s just a deliberate plane crash. To terrorize, the towers had to fall. Had they stood, they would have been monuments of strength, not vulnerability. Bush would have looked like a monkey standing on top of the twin towers with his bullhorn, trying to explain why he ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA. There’s nothing impossible about blowing up buildings. Your invented “facts” only make you look silly.

        I don’t have any Silverstein “pull it” crap. What gave the idea that I did?

        OK, try me. Ask me a question I can’t deal with.

      2. OK, Brian; how did Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others in your 9/11 “truth movement” get 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire collapse of the exterior of WTC 7? NIST timed the top ~242′ in ~5.4 seconds, fully explaining in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9 what video they used and their complete methodology. It’s irrefutable, and does not include the ~7 seconds of penthouse collapse preceding it. The remaining ~368′ didn’t fall in ~1.2 seconds, and no available collapse video shows the bottom floors of the building because of other buildings in the foreground blocking them from view, along with dust clouds later in the collapse (which were room temperature and scalded or burned no one, but were “pyroclastic,” according to Gage), even if the buildings weren’t in the way.
        I get 9+ seconds from looking at a compilation of WTC 7 collapse videos, but had to extrapolate (guess) for the part I couldn’t see, and have insufficient information to give it to much more than the nearest entire second.
        There are plenty more, but please help me out with that one first.

      3. Let’s see if you think the timers in this video know what they’re talking about, Brian:
        Unlike NCSTAR 1A and the investigation into WTC 7’s collapse, NCSTAR 1 involved no rigorous attempt to establish tower collapse times with precision, and your “truth movement” has exploited that fact by quoting an informal reference to them in NCSTAR 1, and another in the 9/11 Commission Report, the latter of which wasn’t a scientific paper at all. The first pieces of ejected debris didn’t even reach the ground until ~9 seconds after either tower’s upper section began falling, and the North Tower’s collapse zone wasn’t even down to the height of WTC 7 standing nearby when they did. The South Tower fell considerably faster, but still took at least 15 seconds to reach the bottom, and left many stories of core framing standing for another 15-20 seconds. Does that sound like “nearly free-fall acceleration” to you, when the free-fall time from 1368′ is ~9.25 seconds?
        Elapsed times do not indicate what caused the structural failure leading to the collapse, and NIST’s collapse modeling for WTC 7 clearly explains the ~2.25 seconds of almost free-fall acceleration near the top. Jowenko’s claim that it was a C/D is based only on some grainy videos with no sound, and he’d need to have had X-ray vision that worked on videos to have determined what caused the building’s global collapse with just that information, but he’s a so-called demolition “expert” who’s saying what you guys want to hear.
        President Bush’s oldest kid looks like a monkey anyway, and totally screwed up by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam in 2003, but 4 hijacked and crashed US airliners with 246 innocent passengers and crew aboard, plus the damage done to the towers and the Pentagon, along with the 2000 or so already dead without the collapses were more than sufficient death and destruction to get the same almost unanimous congressional resolution to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan in October, 2001, which is something that should have been done after the 2 embassy SUICIDE bombings in 1998, and the SUICIDE bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, both of which were also conclusively linked to these guys:
        Did they need to draw you a picture?
        The bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Azzam families are among the wealthiest and most influential in their respective countries, SA and Egypt, with full access to the world’s media. Why aren’t they defending their relatives from charges of mass murder? OBL only denied it hurriedly when fleeing US air attacks right after 9/11, and has glorified his “martyrs” since then, as has Ayman al-Zawahiri (whose mother’s an Azzam). Do those people need the 9/11 “truth movement” to defend their good names? The real perpetrators of 9/11 didn’t collaborate with anyone the “truth movement” is libeling to do the impossible, i.e. secretly bomb 3 busy, occupied hi-rises in NYC for no plausible reason during their attack on the US. There’s also no evidence that any of the numerous hijackings over US airspace needed inside help from the government, and most have gone flawlessly with only one person taking over, not 4 or 5 including a sufficiently-trained pilot.

  13. Mrboz 2/28 1:20 a: Thanks for referencing the CRC and proving my point. The CRC is a an authoritative reference book, compiled by qualified people on the basis of verifiable scientific work done by qualified researchers. It is not a forensic essay.

    Citing overlong TNRATS works is the refuge of bullshitters. CIT supporters such as onesliceshort love to post datadump essays that are rarely on topic but look quite impressive if you don’t read them.

  14. Albury 3/1 6:50

    I don’t know how the 6.6 seconds was arrived at for the observed collapse of the external structure. I think it comes from NIST.

    (Very clumsy dodge, by the way. We were discussing the fact that NIST already admitted “essentially in free fall” for the towers. You had also suggested that I would have pulled a “Nike Ranke” if I were confronted with certain questions, and now you won’t tell me what the questions are.)

    NIST gets its 5.4 by simply adding 2.9 seconds arbitrarily to the beginning of the 2.5 seconds of freefall for WTC7. David Chandler has examined the videos and can see no event justifying starting the clock at that time. The remainder of the collapse I guess takes 4 seconds. Nobody claims it took 1.2 seconds.

    1. Time it yourself, Brian, instead of believing your “researchers.” It took ~9 seconds, and the top ~242′ that NIST timed in ~5.4 seconds was clearly explained by them in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9. It’s not even possible to get the entire WTC 7 facade collapse to the nearest 1/10 second, and Gage and his pals just made up their 6.5 or 6.6 second time, which is off by ~40%.
      We were discussing questions you can’t answer, so if you want to dodge that one, please tell us all about room-temperature “pyroclastic” dust clouds that didn’t burn anyone’s skin off, or explain those “minor fires” in WTC 7:




      That’s a lot of lying eyewitnesses, or does some profiteering fraud who wasn’t even there know more about the WTC hi-rise fires than people within a block or two of the WTC on 9/11?
      Richard Gage told a FL representative that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder in seconds on 9/11. There weren’t even 100,000 yards above grade in both towers combined, and most of it was hauled away in chunks, not dust. Would you like to explain what explosive could even do that at all, but especially without leveling NYC and being heard in Atlantic City and Montauk? Try turning even one yard of cured 3500# concrete to fine dust with explosives, and see how easy it is. You’ll have about as much success as you would painting “nanothermite” or any other MIC on a steel column and detonating it to cut through the steel, as Jones and Harrit have claimed is possible.
      You wouldn’t want to “educate” me in front of a lot of people, unless they were all unable to think for themselves and listen to facts and reason, whether you “pack[ed] up your table and [ran] away, screaming insults,” or just sneaked away and hid. 🙂

  15. Albury 3/1 8:41

    OK, so first you say “collapse times don’t indicate what caused a structural failure in a building, and it’s downright silly to claim they do.” And then you want to discuss collapse times exhaustively. What for?

    Why should we care what an anonymous internet poster (“RKOwens”) says about collapse times? NIST says freefall. If you don’t believe it, you should join us in calling for new, honest, competent investigations, and not expect us to glom on to any schmuck with a video who tells us what we want to hear.

    1. Okay, I need both of you guys (Brian and Albury) to sum up your positions on collapse times so that someone reading for the first time would understand your basic point. I think your position (i.e. what the evidence you cite is suggesting) needs clarification for the rest of us.

    2. As I’ve said several times now, Brian: building collapse times do not indicate what caused the failure inside that led to the collapse, but since Gage, Ryan, Steven Jones, and other “9/11 researchers” think they do, they should at least get the times correct and explain how they got them. I also explained to you that it wasn’t done rigorously in NCSTAR 1, because they didn’t model the entire collapse, so their 11 seconds wasn’t the result of any serious research by them. It does make a good “gotcha!” though, just like a typo.

      The “schmuck with a video” isn’t telling you what you want to hear; he’s telling you what the timers showed, and he also cited seismographic evidence. Go to 1:42 in this video made by another schmuck:

      and watch the collapse of the North Tower from a location in Hoboken, NJ. WTC 7 is just to the left of the collapsing tower, and the debris ejected from the collapse initiation area around the tower’s 96th floor is very clearly falling a LOT faster than its collapse zone is. The ambient temperature, but “pyroclastic” (if you believe Box Boy), dust clouds obscure the view, as do lower buildings between the tower and the camera, but it’s obvious that the first loose airborne debris begins hitting the pavement before the collapse zone is even down to the 47-story height of WTC 7. The ejected column trees and other debris actually are free falling, so how can the collapse zone also be free falling, when both of them began falling at the same time from ~96 stories up, and the debris is ~50 stories ahead of it 10 or 11 seconds after the collapse started?

      Here’s an even better question: Why are Gage, Jones, Ryan and others still claiming that the towers fell in <12 seconds when it's so easy to establish the fact that they're off by at least 3 seconds for the South Tower, and ~10 seconds for the North Tower? It couldn't be more obvious that they're lying.

      1. Albury 3/2 2:12, collapse times in free fall indicate a total loss of structural integrity that can not happen except through deliberate demolition. So yes, collapse times do indicate what caused the failure.

        NIST tells us in section 6.14.4 that the towers’ top sections came down “essentially in free fall” and Shyam Sunder says the same thing to NOVA, saying the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. NIST has also acknowledged that, as David Chandler showed, for 2.5 seconds WTC7 fell at free fall acceleration. Since NIST had previously claimed that WTC7 did not come down in free-fall because that would require a total lack of structural support, the implication of NIST’s admission is that 8 stories of structure just vanished.

        I am not interested in your amateur investigations or in undertaking my own investigation. I am interested in having official, accountable, honest, complete, well-funded investigations with subpoena power so that we can have rigorous, scientific, believable answers about what happened to the towers. For debunkers to claim “NIST was wrong, but here’s the answers in this amazing 8-minute youtube by TwoofersAreStupidScum911” is childish.

      2. Here are some things that actually “cannot happen,” Brian: Steel-framed hi-rises in major cities cannot be secretly bombed without explosions being heard by tens of thousands of people just before they collapse, and loud enough to be noticed 10 or more miles away. It also cannot happen that no steel columns would be found later in the debris with something other than normally-expected mechanical severing, usually at bolted connections. Secretly planting explosives in busy hi-rises also cannot happen, but the first two eliminate any possibility of a C/D. Molten metal caused by explosives or incendiaries and discovered in burning debris piles weeks or months after a collapse can happen, but only in 9/11 “truth movement” urban legends.

  16. Albury 3/1 10:06

    I see no need to time WTC7 myself. Chandler has timed it and NIST had timed it. NIST admitted that Chandler timed it right, and then with no justification they turned around and added 2.9 seconds to the time.

    You have shifted your goal posts from —-questions I can’t deal with that will make me pack up my table and run away screaming insults— to questions you think I can’t answer. Geologists at Columbia University published a paper at the American Geophysical Union characterizing the dust clouds on 9/11 as “similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano’s slope…. though without the high temperatures.”

    All the photographic evidence is of minor fires at WTC7. NIST’s fire narrative shows minor fires–except around column 79 where they had to keep the fires roaring for two hours to generated the results they needed to bring the floors down.

    Please provide evidence of your claim that the WTC concrete was hauled away in chunks. I’ve never seen these chunks, except a couple of isolated foot-sized chinks.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your chest-thumping is just silly.

    1. NIST did not add any time to the collapse of WTC 7, Brian. In NCSTAR 1A, 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION, they only attempted to present a time for the part of the collapse that they could see and measure accurately, and explained it in detail at 12.5.3 here:

      They also furnished a map showing 9 different camera locations north of WTC 7 in fig 5-183 at this link:
      and used what they designated as Camera 3, which was positioned NNW of WTC 7 at West Street near Harrison Street. Where is Gage’s explanation for a total facade collapse time, to the nearest 1/10 second, of 6.6 seconds?

      There is a HUGE difference between “similar to that of a pyroclastic flow,” and “pyroclastic dust clouds,” so please feel free to check AE911″truth”.org to see which term they used in their “WTC Building #7…exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives” list of BS. Dust clouds during a controlled demolition collapse aren’t directly caused by the explosive charges, and don’t begin emerging at the bottom, i.e. just below the moving upper part, until gravity begins crushing the material in the building, so calling dust clouds that are common in every building collapse “pyroclastic” is a deliberately misleading attempt to imply that explosives were used.
      Almost all of the video taken after the towers had both collapsed was from the north side of WTC 7, for rather obvious reasons, and the fires began in lower floors near the SW corner of the building. When they’d reached the north side, they were still almost all below the 13th floor, so there isn’t a lot of video footage showing the severity of the fires down there for the same reason Box Boy and friends couldn’t time an entire WTC 7 facade collapse and just added .45 seconds or so to the ~6.15-second free-fall time from ~610′, IOW lied. The FDNY commanders in charge didn’t think the fires were minor, or they wouldn’t have set up a ~600′ safety perimeter around WTC 7 around 2:30 PM, nor did any of these eyewitnesses (or conspirators, if you want to call them that):



      Rather than my looking around for photos showing that there was plenty of fractured concrete from the ~4″ floor slabs, which is the only place it could have come from above grade in the towers, why don’t you show me some of the mountains of fine dust particles that you think were at GZ (that no one there thought were unusual)? Concrete falling from as high as 1/4 mile is going to break up quite a bit, the dust clouds started much higher up than in a C/D, and the buildings were huge, so there were enormous clouds of dust, but it was mainly from the drywall, and bombs causing any of the concrete to turn to dust weren’t seen or heard, fortunately, or NYC would have been leveled by them. No one would blow up floors instead of columns to drop a building anyway, so let’s see some photos of even one explosively-severed column from any of the 3 buildings.
      Good move not making the absurd “truth movement” claim that Silverstein publicly admitted to blowing up WTC 7. You’d have a lot more ‘splainin’ to do.
      Btw, I also wondered why you said you didn’t feel that you needed to time the collapses yourself. Do you just believe everything you read? NIST never said the entire collapse took 6.6 seconds, and Gage made it up, but I would think that you’d be curious if nothing else, and it isn’t very difficult to do.

      1. “There is a HUGE difference between “similar to that of a pyroclastic flow,” and “pyroclastic dust clouds,” so please feel free to check AE911″truth”.org to see which term they used in their “WTC Building #7…exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives” list of BS. Dust clouds during a controlled demolition collapse aren’t directly caused by the explosive charges, and don’t begin emerging at the bottom, i.e. just below the moving upper part, until gravity begins crushing the material in the building, so calling dust clouds that are common in every building collapse “pyroclastic” is a deliberately misleading attempt to imply that explosives were used.”~Albury Smith

        . . . . . . . . . .

        This is a fallacious argument; claiming that, “Dust clouds during a controlled demolition collapse aren’t directly caused by the explosive charges”. It doesn’t matter whether the cause is “direct” or not, the fact is that it is a feature of controlled demolition that has never been exhibited in any other destruction of a steel framed building besides controlled demolition. Therefore such dust clouds are indicative of explosive demolition. And the brisance of the explosive certainly does turn the materials to dust, which is contained within a properly executed implosion until the final stage when it is blown out as a cloud.

  17. Albury 3/2 3:50,

    I didn’t say NIST added time to the collapse, I said that David Chandler says they added time to the freefall portion, incorporating an arbitrary 2.9 seconds of the pre-visible collapse time into the freefall portion before it begins.

    Gage uses the term “pyroclastic-like” because the heated cauliflower clouds resemble those of volcanic eruptions. Geologists at Columbia University noted the similarity long before Gage ever gave any thought to 9/11. http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html

    Several photos show the fires in WTC. They were wimpy. It was widely believed among FDNY personnal that the towers had been blown up with explosives, so setting up a large safety zone around WTC7 was only prudent. Later it became politically incorrect to talk about explosions, so naturally the authorities are highly motivated to exaggerate the severity of the fires. There are no pictures of severe fires. Not one.

    If you have photos of fractured floor slabs, kindly show them. The only slabs I’ve seen were basement slabs. Gordon Ross has pictures of core columns with concavities that may reflect explosive pressures.

    Abury 3/2 4:07, your evidence-free profession of faith is not convincing.

  18. I’ve posted links to the relevant portions of NIST’s report on their timing of the top ~242′ of WTC 7, Brian, and they very clearly did not add any time to it anywhere. Where’s the “truth movement’s” similar explanation for the 6.5 or 6.6 seconds they invented for the entire facade collapse? If I haven’t yet, here’s the petition at the “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” web site:
    Please feel free to count up all of the signatories there who even claim to be FDNY. I’ve also explained to you why there are few videos of the fires in WTC 7’s lower floors, but here are quite a number of actual eyewitnesses, or more conspirators to add to your already lengthy list, who disagree with your claim that the WTC 7 fires were “wimpy”:




    Whatever Gordon Ross, or whoever, thinks he has, no one who was there noticed it on any of the steel, and 40 to 50 stories of core framing in both towers stood for 15 or more seconds after the rest of each collapse was over. As luck would have it, 236 of the 283 columns in each WTC tower were outside of the living areas and in plain view, and they very obviously buckled slowly with no help from your imaginary explosives to start each collapse. If they had actually been blown up, your “researchers” wouldn’t be squinting at videos to find a few random puffs of compressed air and dust to call “squibs.”

    1. Mr. Good on March 1 (2:51 AM) said it best.

      I have encountered someone named Albury elsewhere on the internet who was also fact-averse and a time-waster.

      The Albury-bot is a merry-go-round, repeating endlessly the same schtick. He’s been through the same red-herring and strawman points with me in another article on Mr. McKee’s blog, at least once. The links he posts to his previous discussions are most funny, as they show how fact-averse the bot really is. He does not comprehend the details or significance of the very NIST reports that he links.

      Mr. Albury, you were asked to summarize you red-herring points on the total collapse, not cycle through them again. Enough of your games.

      I’ll be asking Mr. McKee to heavily moderate your comments and to simply not publish anything from you that will take us through another loopy-loop of your merry-go-round on NIST, collapse times, etc. It is not banishment (yet), but by your own admission, banishment is what you’ve gotten everywhere else and what you expect here.


      For lurker readers and future database archeologists fool-hardy enough to read this far down into Albury’s spinning, allow me to stop the amusement park ride with the following (also a retread from me but one that time-wasting Albury hasn’t grasped.)

      A Zen philosophy isn’t that the glass is half empty or half full or (engineering wise) twice as big as it needs to be; it is that the glass is already broken, giving us pause to appreciate its functionality and usefulness while still in one piece.

      Applied to any of the buildings in the WTC, their collapse began when the first piece of material was raised into a vertical position and ended when the last piece of dust from its structure fell out of the sky: decades. When viewed in this manner, we can see that total collapse times do not matter, particularly when height divided by collapse time is used to achieve a (meaningless) average speed for that collapse period that obviously is going to be much slower than free-fall. Clearly the collapse period of decades needs to be broken down into stages of similar action for any such calculations to have meaning.

      Now if we were to shorted the total collapse period to something like 6.5, 6.6, or 10 seconds for WTC-7, or to 10, 15, or 30 seconds for any of the towers, which are apparently the hairs Albury-bot is splitting in his retread red-herring argumentation, any calculations performed to supposedly conclude collapses slower than free-fall are going to be erroneous, misleading, and meaningless, because the actions and movements during that period are not uniform. Repeated from above: Clearly the collapse period … needs to be broken down into stages of similar action for any such calculations to have meaning.

      NIST has done this for us, yet the Albury-bot side-steps this. Chandler points this out quite well in his videos, yet the Albury-bot ignores this as well. And I nailed the Albury-bot for repeating a dubious argument (lie) that he tried to pawn off on Chandler’s analysis.

      NIST and Chandler prove that WTC-7 had a stage in its demolition spanning 8 stories (over 100 ft) that was indistinguishable from free-fall. Dr. Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, even did us the favor of explaining what free-fall meant (paraphrased): no structure or support is present below a falling mass to resist its downward movement.

      WTC-1, 2, and 7 collapsed through their paths of greatest resistance. In the case of WTC-7, no govt (or Albury-bot) explanation has been provided for why 8 consecutive stories would suddenly transition at the same time and uniformly across the entire length and width from maximum resistance as built and designed into zero resistance so as to account for free-fall. In the case of the towers, no govt (or Albury-bot) explanation has been provided for why 80 some stories transitioned from maximum resistance into something significantly less to account for increasing acceleration (albeit not quite free-fall) while at the same time turning content into plasmic dust. Why? Because such explanations would require considering additional energy sources in order for the well-understood Newtonian physics equations to work. Such additional energy sources were ruled out by the govt for superficial and unscientific reasons based on the assumptions that aircraft impacts and its fuel was the only extra energy source present.

      Albury-bot wrote:

      If they had actually been blown up, your “researchers” wouldn’t be squinting at videos to find a few random puffs of compressed air and dust to call “squibs.”

      Unless Dr. Wood’s new textbook convinces me of DEW, the energy requirements of the dustification exhibited from the earliest stages of demolition (along with the speed, other post-demolition evidence) has me speculating multiple milli-nukes. WTC-7 was always a smoking gun. From Dr. Wood’s textbook, I’ve learned about: the lightly damaged bathtub (that should have been heavily damaged); the WTC-4 main edifice flattening/dustification and not the WTC-4 north wing; the WTC-6 crater; and the WTC-5 cylindrical holes. These have two further anomalous features. (1) There is insufficient debris from the towers on top or within the crater or holes to account for such complete failure. (2) There is insufficient debris from their own structure within the pile or crater, having been among other things pulverized.

      So, yes, squinting at videos to find a few random puffs of compressed air and dust to call “squibs” may not be as important as the destruction being wrought.

  19. You’ve probably read this as carefully as you did NCSTAR 1, 1A, and the other NIST releases, Senor, so I’d like to suggest it to you again:
    It more than adequadetely addresses all of the fantasy, confusion, and sophistry you’ve posted above.
    Kudos to Craig for continuing to allow sensible discussion of facts and evidence on his forum, regardless of anyone’s wishes to censor it.

    1. The Albury-bot starts turning his Merry-go-round on NIST NCSTAR for a fresh spin again from the beginning. TIME TO GET OFF HERE, and save our sanity ticket.

      As “fact-averse and a time-waster” as ever, eh? Can’t summarize his total collapse time points. Can’t recognize when his points were addressed. Can’t recognize the details of the NIST NCSTAR report that he champions when they are extracted and presented in a different framework.

      Nature abhors a vacuum and favors chaos. Whereas we could expect asymmetric, non-uniform, gradual, and chaotic destruction of a building (WTC-7) on fire, what we observed (and NIST admits) was symmetric, uniform, sudden, and orderly destruction in the form of free-fall over 100 ft. None of their computer simulations goes far enough or accurately enough to explain these features.

      Albury-bot. End Subroutine. Exit Function. Abort program. Cancel. Quit. Exit. Stop.

  20. Have you read Dr. Dutch’s paper that I’ve linked to twice here, Senor? Please pay close attention to the “It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition” part near the beginning.
    I have more than sufficiently “summarize[d] [my] total collapse time points,” so it’s up to you now to read and understand them. It’s not really too difficult to understand that gravity makes things fall in a building collapse, whatever triggers the event.

      1. Steel columns can only hold so much weight, and those severed by high-speed 767s hold none, while those that deflect more than 4′ inward because of heat hold very little. When too much of the 60,000 or 125,000 TON overburden is transferred to the undamaged columns, a collapse takes place, and in the towers it took an hour or so to happen, but finally did, with no explosives seen or heard within minutes prior to it.
        In a real controlled demolition, the noise of the charges would be much louder than the collapse itself, and would be heard within seconds of the collapse. Explosives would also have blown the smoke from the fires outward very noticeably and suddenly right before either top section started falling. The lack of any of this happening is only part of the reason that there weren’t any C/Ds at the WTC on 9/11. If any WTC building had been demolished by explosives, hundreds of columns with cutter charge signatures would have been found in the debris pile afterward.

    1. In cutting the power to the Albury-bot’s merry-go-round, I did read his linked disinformation piece. Here is a choice quote:

      One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?

      Lots of assumptions and strawman arguments in this little diddy. For one, it assumes that all controlled demolitions have the same goals. No, they don’t, although most probably do.

      Controlled demolition refers to — drum roll please — controlling features of the demolition to achieve a certain goal. Generally speaking, CD is designed [goals] to minimize unnecessary damage to surrounding structure, to break the structure up into smaller pieces easier to remove, and to place or position the debris where they want (in its own footprint, in an adjacent lot, etc.)

      However, as we’ve seen from CD used by Hollywood (like in a Lethal Weapon movie) and by Las Vegas to create a spectacular event of the razing of the Dunes, it can be enhanced and modified to achieve other goals.

      The CD on 9/11 had indeed other goals in mind, whereby destruction higher in the towers would be beneficial to mask over craters being made in WTC-6, cylindrical holes in WTC-5, the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice, etc.

  21. Albury, yes gravity makes things fall. And people die. But if my daughter-in-law goes to the hospital for childbirth and the hospital won’t let me see her for six days and then they tell me that her head is missing and she died of death, that’s not good enough. I want answers that can be believed.

    Dr. Dutch’s essay is about conspiracy theorists and nutty 9/11 physics. It thus applies to people like Adam Ruff, who think the damage at the Pentagon was all faked and who think a plane dropping 10 feet in 300 feet is an aerodynamically impossible steep dive. It doesn’t apply to me.

    Dr. Dutch’s claim that WMD could be planted simply in Iraq is not true. Any WMD found there would have been subjected to scientific scrutiny by the international community, and there are ways of tracing things. The anthrax, you may have forgotten, was soon traced back to US military labs at Fort Detrick. Faking scientific evidence is not as simple as non-scientists like yourself believe.

    Dr. Dutch’s complacency and the post-hoc-ergo-propter hoc fallacy of planes-hit-buildings, buildings-fall-down, therefore planes make buildings fall down are most unscientific. He’s got the answers he wants, and he just wants to have another beer and go back to sleep.

    His essay is very silly.

  22. I’ve already pointed out some of the misdirection in the following quotation from an Albury-bot endorsed reference.

    One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath.

    The key phrases that has it debunk itself are “always” and “nobody ever”. As suggested with this strawman (because pancaking never happened on 9/11), demolition firms would not “pancake the stories” (like what happens in earthquakes), because stacked up and pancaked floor slabs would make the job of removal much harder than broken and chunked floors.

    Of course, it should be pointed out that testimony and evidence proves they did set off charges low in the (towers) on 9/11, although timed with (supposed) aircraft impacts. Plus, I’ve seen videos of a normal building demolitions where charges were set relatively high (in the vertical middle) of a structure, so that the upper half would destroy itself in a Newtonian fashion while falling into & destroying the lower half.

    To cut Albury off at the pass, vertical middle is not high as in 80th or 90th floor, I know. Which leads us to a mal-framed nugget of truth from Albury’s endorsed (disinfo) demolition article when it asks:

    So why resort to a radical and unproven method [top-down & with milli-nukes] if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?

    Part of the answer comes from nuggets of truth mined from someone in the 9/11 Truth Movement even more controversial than CIT and its fly-over: namely, Dr. Judy Wood and her new textbook, “Where Did the Towers Go?”. (See bottom of this posting for the limits of my endorsement.)

    The first nugget of truth is the WTC bathtub, the massive 75 foot slurry walls they created to keep out the Hudson River. Had this been damaged in any minorly significant manner, it would have flooded not just the basements of the WTC complex, not just the subway system, but also most of the other buildings in that part of the city.

    Set this to the side for a moment while I introduce two nuggets of truth from another disinformation source, Dimitri Khalezov, a former Russian operative. He wrote:

    Building Codes [in the 1960’s] did not allow to permit the building of skyscrapers unless a developer of the construction project could submit a satisfactory demolition scheme of his would be skyscraper.

    Mr. Khalezov suggests that atomic demolition schemes for the towers were not only submitted but approved. Remember, the Davey Crocket nukes from the early 1960’s proved small nukes existed, and naturally would be refined in the coming decades.

    Of course, Mr. Khalezov reveals the above nuggets of truth while peddling his disinformation: namely, deep underground 150kT nukes were used on the WTC. This is wrong because (a) the magnitude of his nukes are too large for the destruction observed and recorded seismic readings, (b) the near undamaged bathtub and subway [debunking from Dr. Wood] disproves anything deep underground, and (c) the destruction is observed happening mostly top-down.

    Still, Mr. Khalezov’s nuggets of truth, though, exposes the deeper rabbit-hole question: why would nukes have been a satisfactory demolition scheme for the WTC towers in the 1960’s to get their building permits?

    This brings me to a second nugget of truth I’ve gleamed from Dr. Wood’s textbook that I’ve taken the liberty of turning into an analogy:

    If 10 lbs. of something were to be dropped on your toes from just a one foot height, would you rather have it be a 10 lb. dumbbell from the fitness club, or 10 lbs. of dust? The thing about dust is that it has a large surface area and is affected massively by air resistance and even air currents. Ten pounds of dust probably couldn’t be contained in a neat volume the size of the dumbbell. But assuming the 10 lbs. of dust were in a box or something with a trap door to get it accelerating towards your toes all at once at free-fall, by its very nature the dust would spread out. Your toes would not experience the full gravitational force of 10 lbs. dropped. Maybe after the dust settled (pun intended) your toes might be buried in a pound or two, but the rest of the 10 lbs. would be spread some distance. Moreover the pound or two did not fall onto your toes as a cohesive mass; the pound or two of dust on your toe landed with the force of the summation of impacts of individual dust particles that you might hardly notice. You’d walk away without a limp.

    The above is essentially one of the ways that Dr. Wood debunks both a gravitational collapse and a controlled demolition (using conventional techniques and assumptions). Both would result in massive blocks and chunks of building falling significant vertical distances whose built up kinetic energy would have damaged the bathtub and completely flooded and fouled an even larger part of the city (maybe even and heaven forbid “Wall Street”).

    As we observe in many videos, the towers were turned to dust or fine powder from the earliest visible moments of destruction high in the structure. The bigger chunks and pieces that did survive, mostly from outer spandrel, weren’t so massive and would not have individually gained enough kinetic energy in their fall to be a threat to the all-important bathtub.

    The dust created and its distribution over a wide area is how such atomic demolition schemes (today in the form of milli-nukes) could have been considered satisfactory when applying for building permits and answers the mal-framed question regarding why top-down radical and unproven methods were deployed. Pulverization spares important infrastructure like the bathtub and subway from crippling damage. Plus, pulverization covers over the creation of the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical boreholes and fires in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice.

    So, if we assume that Dimitri Khalezov, the Albury’s endorsed reference, and Dr. Wood are disinformation agents, the above has mined several nuggets of truth and re-purposed them to assist in a more Occam Razor explanation for 9/11: milli-nukes.

    I’m just a data miner for nuggets of truth in the wild winding rabbit holes of 9/11 Truth & Disinformation. Disinformation is actually the 9/11 Truth Movement’s gold mine. All disinformation rabbit holes to be effective have to be lined with a solid layer of truth to establish credibility and belief, else they’ll never be able to steer you later into the loony wing. In fact, they sometimes have to dangle a prized nugget of never-before-seen/acknowledged truth to get to you sniff into the hole. Should it be later determined that some branches of the rabbit hole seemingly turn into dead-end gopher holes, before “milli-nuking” the gopher hole closed, it is the duty of all honest seekers of truth to extract, preserve, and re-use the solid layer and dangling nuggets of truth.

    DISCLAIMER: I do not know Dr. Judy Wood. I am not affiliated with her book. I receive neither bonus, kickback, nor monetary renumeration or acknowledgement for plugging Dr. Wood’s textbook.

    ENDORSEMENT:, I find Dr. Wood’s textbook, “Where Did the Towers Go?”, to be an invaluable contribution to my 9/11 library. Within the first half that I’ve read, it has many nuggets of truth and newer creative ways to trash the OGCT with physics. Her textbook is a high-quality card-cover publication, is physically big (almost 8-1/2″x11″ and the thickness of a college textbook), and is designed as reference material that can be read out of sequence. The 500 color WTC images, maps, and tables that correlate images to views marked on the maps make it well worth the price and an addictive page-turner that even those who distrust her words and analysis will value.

    As mentioned, I’m not at the half way mark yet. I reserve the right to be out-of-alignment with conclusions that might be presented in that 2nd half of Dr. Wood’s textbook. Yet, the 1st half, the 500 color images, and the quality publication establishes the value of the textbook. And should that 2nd half prove to be sweet as honey disinformation, that too is something we’ll be able to point out to our grandchildren regarding the depths of how our generation were being played.

    1. Spamming still doesn’t put the square peg into the round hole, Senor, nor does manufacturing a yarn about contingency demolition plans built into ’60s or ’70s hi-rises. There was simply no evidence in the debris piles indicating that anything other than plane damage, heat from the fires, and gravity caused the collapses, no motive for adding to the death and destruction by anyone you’re libeling, and it would have been impossible to do with only you troofers knowing about it, instead of everyone within miles, plus the millions who’ve seen the videos.
      Here’s a cut through a typical tower perimeter column:

      Here’s an erection photo:

      They buckled slowly at the start of each tower collapse, after 40 or more of them on the opposite side and core had been severed by the airliners, with no sounds or visual evidence of your imaginary explosives, or whatever it is at the moment, and there’s also no place on them to hide anything, assuming someone got lucky enough hundreds of times in different tenant spaces to pass through building and tenant security with explosives.
      You’re not adding to anyone’s understanding of the truth about the 9/11 al Qaeda suicide attacks on the US, or at all interested in ways that engineers can design hi-rises to be safer in the future, and should really consider taking up another hobby.

      1. The Albury-bot wrote:

        There was simply no evidence in the debris piles indicating that anything other than plane damage, heat from the fires, and gravity caused the collapses, no motive for adding to the death and destruction by anyone you’re libeling, and it would have been impossible to do with only you troofers knowing about it, instead of everyone within miles, plus the millions who’ve seen the videos.

        Clap. Clap. Clap. Bravo! I couldn’t have written a better run-on sentence myself!

        Guess your algorithms were having difficulties correlating my posting with an appropriate response from your database or confirmation with the Q-Group team, so the output defaulted to a meaningless, all-purpose yarn exhibiting splendidly your fact-averse and time-wasting nature.

        Or maybe you mistypes and really wanted to write:

        There was simply no evidence in the debris piles indicating anything like plane damage, heat from the fires, and gravity to have caused the collapses… so thorough was the nuclear pulverization of content.

        By the way. Who am I supposedly libeling? The disinfo agents I quoted and from whom I extracted nuggets of truth? Good one.

        Here is another gem proving how confused the Albury-bot’s artificial intelligence programming got:

        They buckled slowly at the start of each tower collapse, after 40 or more of them on the opposite side and core had been severed by the airliners, with no sounds or visual evidence of your imaginary explosives, or whatever it is at the moment, and there’s also no place on them to hide anything, assuming someone got lucky enough hundreds of times in different tenant spaces to pass through building and tenant security with explosives.

        The airliners and explosives are a figment of your imagination. Putting words into my mouth, eh?

        I am a “no-(commercial)-planer” and believe that the airliners you reference were pixels put into the television feeds to cover over military planes or missiles.

        Instead of explosives, I’ve been speculating milli-nuclear devices. And due to their nature, you’d only need 2-6 per tower. Cuts down the number of trips through building and tenant security by a couple orders of magnitude, which is far from impossible as you imply. And given the power down in one of the weekends prior to 9/11 and the short vacation given to bomb-sniffing dogs about the same time, how lucky is that?

        The Albury-bot writes the following absolutely true statement:

        You’re not adding to anyone’s understanding of the truth about the 9/11 al Qaeda suicide attacks on the US,

        Figured that out all by yourself, did you? I couldn’t agree with you more, because I don’t believe that Al Qaeda (al CIA-duh) did it. At best, they were patsies.

        The Albury-bot writes:

        [You’re not] at all interested in ways that engineers can design hi-rises to be safer in the future,

        You screwed up by including that irrelevant govt talking point. Just so that you know, the engineering task of designing future hi-rises that would be safe from the amount of energy released in (milli-)nuclear devices is a fool-hardy task. Even the govt and Osama bin Laden recognize this, which is why they favor DUMB sites: deep underground military bases.

        The Albury-bot writes

        [You] should really consider taking up another hobby.

        Is that a threat? Hit a nerve, did I? Thanks for confirmation that the milli-nuclear seeds are right.

        Mr. McKee, time now for others to water them while at the same time weeding the garden of Albury-bushes.

      2. Albury, you claims are not true. Molten steel found in the rubble is evidence of something extraordinary, because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

        Thermite cuts without making explosive sounds. The core columns of the building were hollow 16″ X 32″ box columns. There was plenty of space inside for hiding explosives or incendiaries.

        You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      3. The WTC tower core columns varied in size depending on their vertical location in the buildings, Brian, and were WFs in the upper floors where both collapses began. WFs don’t have these cavities where you think it would have been easy to plant something, after secretly ripping out all of the architectural finishes and the fireproofing core board, cutting into the steel walls without setting off smoke alarms or being heard, and then patching it all up and secretly disposing of the mess. Both collapses started when their perimeter columns failed, and 40 to 50 stories of core framing stood for 15 or more seconds after each collapse was essentially complete, so it’s pretty obvious that there was nothing planted in the core columns.

        Thermite and other incendiaries take an eternity to melt through steel, have to burn from the top down, so they only work on horizontal surfaces unless restrained in a bulky, fireproof contraption, and the 9/11 “truth movement” claims that the timing of the effects was split-second, so you’re stuck with explosives, one of which is the amazing “nanothermite,” which apparently can do anything, but is actually an extremely high explosive that produces deafening bangs and flashes so intense that eye protection like a welder’s mask is needed, and can’t simply be applied to a vertical steel surface to sever it. It can be used in cutter charges, but they’d have been seen and heard.

        Whatever secret, fireproof, plane-proof, redundant substance your “researchers” finally agree upon, it still wouldn’t have kept producing heat for the months it took to extinguish the debris fires at GZ, and any incendiary or explosive would have begun cooling within ~5 minutes, with the latter in a tiny fraction of a second. There are only anecdotal reports of molten steel in the debris, and it’s much more likely that it was actually molten lead or aluminum, both of which were in abundance in the WTC buildings and melt below the “hot spot” temperatures recorded by the USGS, and that it was dripping from red-hot steel. If you insist that there were pools of molten steel in the debris, where did it come from, since there were no steel members found that were partially melted, and with big amorphous blobs on their ends?

        It’s you who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and your jet fuel claim is simply a straw man. It burned off in ~10 minutes, and only served as a catalyst to start the massive office fires that ignited immediately after the planes hit and burned long after 9/11.


  23. Have you considered the logical option of simply reading what I wrote and then at least trying to discuss it, or just the ~5 year-old practice in the 9/11 “truth movement” of banning everyone who posts facts to what’s supposed to be an open discussion forum, after someone like Senor uses the obfuscation, name-calling, and insults option, Craig?

    1. I don’t know what you think a five-year-old practice of “banning everyone” has to do with me. I haven’t banned anyone. And I don’t see anything from El Once that isn’t fair comment.

  24. I see little from El Once that isn’t ad hominem or red herrings, Craig, and would welcome fair comment on the points I’ve made. Banning was alluded to by him, and is a common experience for me on “forums” run by others in the 9/11 “truth movement,” as I’ve shown on here with at least one example. I’m glad to hear that it has nothing to do with you.

  25. Albury 3/6 7:27

    According to the architectural drawings, as of the 81st floor 26 of the core columns were still in box column mode. Even the H-columns were mostly in elevator shafts. There is nothing in elevator shafts to burn, and no architectural finish to rip out. Mess could be easily disposed of in the hollow box columns.

    Your belief that the standing of the spires shows that no incendiaries were used is irrational. Thermite is easy to ignite with magnesium fuses, but would be very difficult to ignite through ordinary fires. There are more than anecdotal reports of molten steel. There was a 40-pound ingot taken, and Dr. Jones has analyzed a sample from it.
    There is a photo of a girder with a yellow hot end dripping molten steel. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said “I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center”, and Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem wrote that the photo evidence of molten steel was solid.

    You have no evidence of massive office fires. I defy you to show me a picture of a massive office fire.

    1. There are not minor fires, Brian:

      These eyewitnesses aren’t trying to fool you:



      What do you think happens in any hi-rise when ~9500 gallons of jet fuel hits at ~500 mph? There were fireballs on both sides, so there was obviously flaming fuel that soaked the interiors. Do you know of other major office fires that have self extinguished in an hour or two?

      There were only 9 working elevators above the 78th floor sky lobbies in each tower, because fewer floors were served at that height in the towers, and all of the core framing at the impact areas was WF. Whatever you think was planted on the columns, they were all pulled from the debris with no sign of explosive cuts or melting on their ends. The “spires” were the last of that core framing to fall, so the core columns obviously weren’t bombed. No matter what you light thermite with, it still burns very slowly and its results are unpredictable time-wise, unlike explosives. It won’t cut or melt through steel sideways, only straight down, unless restrained in an elaborate, fireproof contraption.

      NOTHING that demolishes steel buildings could possibly have kept any metal molten for months, but debris fires did, so what Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl observed was not evidence of a C/D. NIST has said that steel could have melted in the debris fires; it is not C/D evidence. Astaneh-Asl isn’t in your “truth movement,” btw.
      To answer your other post, forums are places where people discuss topics in a polite, honest fashion. “Forums” ban anyone who disagrees with the crowd, especially if the moderator is one of them. A truth movement would actually be interested in the truth. A “truth movement” listens to bunk from people like Gage , Griffin, and the Loose Change creeps, and believes it.

      1. Albury, what time was that picture of the fire taken? Yes, the jet fuel made some impressive flames until it burned out in less than ten minutes. Obviously a ten-minute fire had little effect on the building.

        What is your point about the 9 elevators and where do you get your misinformation? The architectural drawings for floor 83 clearly show 30 elevator shafts and 4 additional elevator-sized “S.A. & R.A.” shafts. They also show that as of the 81st floor 26 of the core columns were still in box column mode. Also consider that when new fireproofing was applied, thermite charges could have been hidden under the new fireproofing. Also consider that core columns in the office areas were accessible above the false ceiling.

        Your claim that debris fires kept metal molten is meaningless if you don’t explain what produced the molten metal in the first place. NIST doesn’t. Contrary to your claim, thermite can cut sideways, as Jonathan Cole shows in his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4&feature=related

        What Dr. Astaneh observed was “melting of girders”. Do you think melting of girders can not demolish a building? There is a picture of a beam with a yellow-hot end, dripping molten steel.

        Your belief that because the spires stood longer than their associated floors that therefore they were not bombed is irrational. What’s to stop them from being bombed AFTER the rest of the building fell down? What made them fall straight down instead of toppling?

        How can you claim that thermite’s burning is unpredictable? If you manufactured a precision product that had been subjected to tests, its performance could be predicted quite reliably.

        You come here and very confidently assert stuff that just ain’t true, and then you complain that truthers aren’t interested in truth. The reason that you get banned is because you don’t back up your claims, and though you don’t know what you’re talking about you act like you do, and you are very reluctant to reveal your sources of misinformation.

      2. Mr. Albury wrote the following confusion:

        NOTHING that demolishes steel buildings could possibly have kept any metal molten for months, but debris fires did ….

        The above illogical is why you should be banned.

        “NOTHING” would also exclude aircraft impacts, jet fuel, and office furniture fires, because your assumption is that this is what demolished the buildings. Such causes “could not have kept any metal molten for months.” For that matter, debris fires could not either.

        However, the “NOTHING” part isn’t true. Milli-nukes can demolish steel buildings and have kept metal molten for months.

        Mr. Albury wrote the following lie:

        NIST has said that steel could have melted in the debris fires; it is not C/D evidence.

        NIST wouldn’t have said that. NIST used weasel words to say that office fires started by jet fuel might have been able to weaken steel. (The issue for them is that the evidence in the pile suggests fires much hotter than what such fuel sources under ideal conditions can achieve.) The debris fires that you speak of would have had the same essential fuel sources as the office furniture fires (office furniture, building content) with conditions that would have been worse than on the 80th floor or so, because a pile of debris sits on top of it to keep reduce oxygen.

        Mr. Albury wrote:

        Forums are places where people discuss topics in a polite, honest fashion. “Forums” ban anyone who disagrees with the crowd, especially if the moderator is one of them. A truth movement would actually be interested in the truth. A “truth movement” listens to bunk from people like Gage , Griffin, and the Loose Change creeps, and believes it.

        Participants are also banned from forums when they have a history of telling lies, repeating the same arguments, derailing threads, starting flame wars, purposely spreading disinformation, towing the govt line & its talking points 100% without deviation or understanding, etc.

        Your banishment from other forums was earned, as it is here.

      3. What a comedy of errors, Brian. Office fires which are instantly started by drenching large floor areas with ~9500 gallons of flaming jet fuel and severing sprinkler risers are not minor, and don’t go out in an hour or two. I’ve not only posted photos of them, I’ve also furnished numerous eyewitness accounts of the fires, and the expected collapse of each WTC hi-rise well before it happened. It’s completely irrational to separate the “impressive flames” of the jet fuel from the combustible contents inside that the jet fuel ignited, which don’t burn out in ~10 minutes in other office fires, and obviously didn’t in the towers. The fires burned a lot longer than 10 minutes, and their effects on the lightweight bar joists and perimeter columns were not only inevitable, but very well documented. If the core framing that fell after the main collapses were complete had been bombed for some inexplicable reason, it would have been seen and heard, which it wasn’t, and core failure at any point didn’t cause the main collapse.

        The “A” drawings that you’re looking at online aren’t steel submittals or even structural drawings, and the core columns did change to WFs in the upper stories of the towers, not that it matters, since neither column section could have been secretly severed the way you’re suggesting, and they were essentially inaccessible without making a huge mess and creating a major debris removal problem. Nothing secretly hidden underneath SFRM would have cut through the steel; it would simply have flared up briefly and fallen off, assuming that the planes hadn’t dislodged it first. Cole went to ridiculous lengths to get thermite to melt steel, no WTC steel was found with an end on it that looked anything like what he produced, and regardless of how “precision” an incendiary is, it won’t predictably, within even 10 or 20 seconds, cause a steel column to fail.

        Please read the response to question 13 here, since your statement that NIST didn’t address the possibility of molten steel at the WTC is demonstrably false:


        I’d also suggest that you consider the difference between an elevator and an empty elevator shaft, and how anyone would secretly access the walls of a shaft above a working elevator, or even the area of a shaft with a car passing through it regularly. If you think anyone was in them without many people knowing they were there, you’ve just implicated building maintenance and the NYC area elevator mechanics’ union, among others. Above the 78th floor sky lobbies in each tower, the number of working elevators was down to about 9, with ~4 core columns somewhat accessible from them, and the planes affected about half of them, so explosives would either have been redundant or ineffective.

        Dr. Astaneh-Asl isn’t in your “truth movement,” and a beam with a yellow-hot end wouldn’t have an end at all if it were dripping molten steel while in the process of being melted. These events were witnessed long after 9/11, and there were tons and tons of aluminum and lead in both towers that accounted for it. There is no explosive or incendiary known to mankind that keeps steel or any other metal molten for more than a couple of minutes. Please note that the caption under your picture says “A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11,” and there’s no disputing the fact that there was very hot metal pulled out of the debris fires long into the cleanup process.

        I get banned for not drinking the Kool-Aid. If you’d just claimed that Larry Silverstein publicly admitted in a 2002 PBS interview to blowing up his own property, would you rather ban someone for asking you why he was paid a total of $4.68 BILLION by 12 different insurance companies, at least 4 of which were foreign-based, or answer the question? I’ve asserted nothing here that isn’t true, but since you made the claim that “core columns in the office areas were accessible above the false ceiling[s],” please explain. Cores don’t generally contain office areas or have false ceilings, but if your imaginary perpetrators got to the accessible core columns from the office side, were all of the cubicles, cabinets, and other obstacles secretly removed, or did you just add thousands more to this conspiracy?

        1. “13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
          NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.”

          They’re saying that molten metal under the wreckage is irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the collapse? This makes no sense. The molten metal is a physical clue and must have an explanation. I’ve still heard no rational explanation from anyone about this. Where is documentation that a building fire of any kind can cause the formation of pools of molten metal? I just can’t accept burning carpets – or jet fuel for that matter – as the cause of fires that burned for three months.

      4. Please post links describing the use of these alleged “milli-nukes,” Senor. Was everyone at GZ for months unknowingly walking around in a little nuclear reactor, and you’re one of the elite few who know about it? If people should be “banned from forums when they have a history of telling lies, repeating the same arguments, derailing threads, starting flame wars, purposely spreading disinformation, towing [sic] the govt line & its talking points 100% without deviation or understanding, etc.,” then you just qualified for a long-overdue banishment. You cinched it with the claim that “NIST WOULDN’T have said” that “steel could have melted in the debris fires; it is not C/D evidence.” They DID; right here after question #13:


        Since you’re apparently obsessed with the idea of banning anyone who does any of the things you just mentioned, please consider banning yourself from commenting further on here, or ask Craig to do it for you. 🙂

  26. Albury, your 9:29 post is so full of confidently-asserted and entirely unsupported untruths as to be hardly worthy of reply, but your first sentence at least honestly described it as “a comedy of errors”.

    Your second sentence claims that 9500 gals of jet fuel caused the fires. Much of, or even most of, the jet fuel went right through the building and burned up outside in the massive fireballs we saw.

    You have posted one photo of impressive fires. The impressive jet fuel fires burned out in less than ten minutes. After that we have unimpressive fires. If the collapse of the WTC was expected, why did hundreds of firemen go into the building at all? Their presence in the stairwell only impeded the evacuation effort.

    Your insistence on the specification “bombed” for the spire is not justified. Thermite could have brought the spire down silently. You didn’t answer why the spire fell straight down instead of toppling as it should.

    Steel submittals and structural drawings are for some reason being kept secret, so the architectural plans are the evidence we’ve got about the transition to H-columns. Your belief that thermite won’t cut steel is ludicrous; perhaps you’ve been spending too much time watching ridiculously incompetent tests on MythBusters and National Geo.

    NIST did not address the possibility of molten steel–the completely dodged the issue by claiming it was outside of their purview, and by claiming, without offering any evidence whatsoever, that “under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed.” Kindly explain what circumstances made that conceivable.

    You keep repeating your lie that there were only 9 elevators above 78, and you provide no source for your lie. The 83rd floor blueprint shows 30 elevator shafts, and 4 more shafts of the same size for HVAC. Blueprints for many of the upper floors show office space within the cores, and your comments about this space and about the drop ceiling show your ignorance about the WTC specifically and office drop ceilings generally.

    The nine months elevator renovations project meant that people would be used to strange activity in the elevator shafts, and to elevators being removed from service. You are inventing impediments to the planting of explosives that just don’t exist, and you provide no authority for them other than your own imagination.

    1. The massive fireballs were on both the impact and opposite sides of both towers, Brian, and that could not have occurred without a huge wave of flaming jet fuel washing over all of the material in its path, igniting the combustibles instantly. Fuel also ran down the shafts to the basements, so “much of, or even most of, the jet fuel” very obviously didn’t go “right through the building and [burn] up outside in the massive fireballs we saw,” making that one of many of your “unsupported untruths.” The firemen went in to assist evacuation and try to fight the fires in an unprecedented catastrophe, and I have no idea what you’re trying to imply with that question, but it wasn’t until a few hundred of them were inside and unable to get out in time that people began realizing that the towers were going to collapse:


      The crashes destroyed FDNY radio repeaters inside the WTC towers, and adequate warning couldn’t be given to firefighters and others who might have gotten out alive.

      Fast forward this video to the ~2:00 mark and you’ll see that you’re begging the question, since the core framing did not fall “straight down,” but that is the direction that gravity was pulling that day in NYC:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rsj7EERmFo (watch all of it if you want to see how absurd the “near free-fall” claim is also. hint: the debris is free falling, so the collapse zone obviously isn’t)

      Another of your unsupported untruths is that the drawings were kept secret. Sets in PANJNY engineering offices were lost in the collapses, and the towers were designed long before CAD programs were widely used, but every detail of their construction is readily available from one source or another; it’s just costly and impractical to print out copies for everyone who asks. You certainly have enough structural and other information on them for this discussion, and even claim to know where the transition was made to WFs from rectangular columns, now that you’ve been reminded that it occurred.

      There were two sky lobbies in each tower, and the number of working elevators above the one on the 78th floor was greatly reduced to serve the 32 floors above that level. Look at a floor plan of the elevator lobby areas above that height and simply count the number of elevator doorways into the shafts to see how many. Core areas were not generally used as office space, and contained rest rooms, elevators shafts, 3 emergency stairwells, numerous utility shafts, and other floor space common to the surrounding leased tenant spaces.

      Your story about 9 months of elevator renovations is not only an unsupported untruth, you haven’t even given me the scope of this alleged work, or “strange activity,” as you termed it. Both towers or just one, and who corroborates this yarn? Are there a lot of union elevator mechanics in the 9/11 “truth movement” now, or were they all in on the plot?

      Your belief that thermite will cut steel the way you claim it will is ‘ludicrous,” and perhaps you should spend more time watching those “ridiculously incompetent tests on MythBusters and National Geo” to get some idea of how it affects steel. If it’s placed in sufficient quantity right on top of a horizontal piece of steel, it’ll eventually melt through it, but not with anything close to precise timing in raging fires, not on vertical surfaces, not for months after it’s lit, and it leaves a big amorphous yellowish blob that a blind man would have seen in the debris, not a mechanically severed end. The reply to question #12 here explains why it isn’t used in C/Ds, and couldn’t perform as advertised by your “researchers”:


      You could learn a lot by reading the entire fact sheet.

  27. The WTC debris fires were very hot and long-lasting, Craig, and that well-documented fact isn’t suspicious to anyone who was there during the cleanup. Sustained temperatures above the melting points of both lead and aluminum were recorded at GZ months after 9/11, but reports of molten steel are anecdotal, unconfirmed, and probably lead or aluminum dripping from steel, which would have been red hot at those temperatures. It simply makes no sense to attribute these very explainable phenomena to incendiaries or explosives, neither of which produces heat for more than a couple of minutes, and there were no partially-melted columns or other pieces of structural steel pulled from the debris, so there isn’t even a source for this allegedly molten steel.

    The ends of columns mechanically broken in the collapse of ~500,000-ton buildings that were ~1/4 mile high wouldn’t look at all like those cut or melted with a controlled demolition substance, and regardless of how quickly you think the steel was scrapped, it still took nearly 8 months during which plenty of people had a good look at it, including union ironworkers, SEAoNY, FEMA BPAT, Port Authority, ASCE, and other engineers, and controlled demolition contractors, who’ve seen what’s left after a building is brought down with explosives. Way too many conspirators, and that’s just in the alleged cover up.

    I’ve seen one attempt to show evidence of WTC columns cut by explosives, and Steven Jones is really desperate or dishonest if he thinks the majority of people don’t know what an acetylene torch cut looks like. Why on earth would a high explosive like nanothermite have left gray slag around the cut it made in a column, or any slag at all? His “evidence” photos are of torch cuts made at or below grade, since the columns are plumb and apparently still attached to foundations, and the collapses started at least 1000′ feet higher up in the towers. He even shows the tanks, torch, hoses, and workers who were nearby in the second photo, so were they all blind and stupid? Why does he think they didn’t notice this if it happened before they uncovered them in the pile, but he did just from looking at photos?

    His photos and interpretation of them are on p. 32 here, along with volumes of other nonsense:


    1. Saying the debris fires were hot and long-lasting doesn’t explain anything. You say “red hot at those temperatures.” What temperatures? How do you account for molten metal remaining molten for months? You say it’s a very explainable phenomenon, but I don’t think this is true at all. I haven’t heard any explanation of this that makes any sense or that can be proven scientifically. In fact, the most intriguing possibility is the milli-nuke idea put forward by El Once.

      1. How do YOU account for molten metal remaining molten for months, Craig? Everyone at GZ during the cleanup thought it was caused by the debris fires, but if milli-nukes did it, please prove that it’s even scientifically possible. What else have these phenomenal new explosives been used for, why would anyone except al Qaeda have wanted the 9/11 damage to have been greater than it was without the collapses, and what happened to all of the radioactivity that no one noticed in the first place?

        1. I’m not sure the onus is on me to explain it. You’re the one who believes in the official story; you explain it. What “everyone” at the scene thought is hardly conclusive evidence. I’m at the point now where I’m interested in pursuing the nuke possibility. I’m not yet in a position to prove their existence, but there are some things that haven’t been explained by people on your side, and I think the possibility of some kind of high-tech explosive being used should be investigated. I’m not one of those people who scoff at unconventional explanations for events on that day. The whole disaster was unconventional. I want to understand the molten metal (I haven’t seen any evidence or precedent for debris fires causing this), I want to understand the melted vehicles that were found blocks away from Ground Zero, and I want to see more evidence to explain the cancers we’ve seen among rescue workers and clean-up people. Can you prove how these three things came to be? Are you saying we should avoid investigating further?

    2. Albury asked:

      Please post links describing the use of these alleged “milli-nukes,” Senor.

      – Review as many videos (and pictures) of both the tower’s demolition and its aftermath that you can find.
      Where Did the Towers Go?, by Dr. Judy Wood. This textbook should be in the libraries of every serious 9/11 researcher. The organized pictures and correlation to views from map positions in this large 7″x10″ hard-cover textbook, together with new and creative ways to debunk the OGCT within the first half, make it worth the investment and invaluable. The 2nd half takes you deep down a rabbit of science that will either convince you of directed energy weapons [DEW] or (due to it exceeding your understanding of science) of it being disinformation, but in the event it is the latter, it will serve as yet another example of how our generation has been played.

      You caught me at an opportune moment, Mr. Albury. My 9/11 belief system is waffling. I propose milli-nukes due to the enormous magnitude of the energy requirements in the destruction. I’m just past the half-way point in Dr. Wood’s textbook, and she is making a convincing case for DEW. Unlike you, I understand why the OGCT that you religiously defend is full of holes and lies.

      Failing DEW, failing milli-nukes, what is there, Mr. Albury, that can fully explain the destruction at the WTC. Although WTC-7 is often called the smoking gun, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 were destroyed in a manner that the OGCT can’t explain (with evidence) and are avoided. (I don’t have to be right about milli-nukes or DEW in order to prove you and the OGCT wrong.)

      “If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.” ~ Dr. Judy Wood

      Albury asked:

      Was everyone at GZ for months unknowingly walking around in a little nuclear reactor,

      “Walking around in a little nuclear reactor”? No. But nice exaggeration.

      Aftermath of multiple nuclear events leaving unspent but fizzling nuclear material under the rubble burning at high temperatures for months? Most likely, yes. Remember, the individual nuclear devices would have been small enough for a single person to carry in a suitcase or backpack, maybe even hold in your hand like an overgrown hand-grenade. The nuclear material within the device would have been smaller than your fist. Therefore, after an inefficient detonation (and/or fizzling), the unspent nuclear material would have fragmented much smaller and spread out.

      “Unknowingly walking around?” No. They didn’t call it “Ground Zero” because it was at sea level.

      The walking around part is significant. Because we have been conditioned to think in terms of massive nuclear devices whenever nukes are discussed, false correlations and cognitive dissonance would have people thinking: “if I’m alive and walking around in the dust next to where the towers stood immediately after they were destroyed, then it wasn’t a (massive) nuke.”

      Albury asked:

      and you’re one of the elite few who know about it?

      Why thank you for that compliment, but regrettably, no, I am not part of the elite. Were I part of the elite, I’d be spending my resources and directing my staff to squash the very notion of nukes at every turn, by hook or by crook, because the germination & growth of the seeds of nuclear 9/11 suspicions will destroy the status quo and all that enables me to stay elite. This is precisely what we observe.

      Getting a whiff of nukes, the people would either take back their govt and its institutions or tear it down to establish govt anew; corporations would have their influence cut. The healthy revolution that our founding-fathers encouraged every generation or two is precisely what the elite don’t want. Cuts into profits, revenue streams, agendas, and control.

  28. Albury 12:50, NIST tells us that office fires burn “through ‘normal’ cycles of fire growth, sustained burning, and decay, with burning periods of roughly 20 minutes” at any given location.


    It’s not surprising that you have a fantasy of a huge conflagration burning for 90 minutes in the core, because NIST’s drawings have done much to promote this meme, but it’s not true.

    Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a Berkeley professor of structural engineering, told PBS that “I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center.” Do you have information that WTC girders were built of lead or aluminum? Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that photo evidence of molten steel is persuasive.

    The steel was scooped up by heavy equipment and dumped on barges. Your belief that people “had a good look at it” is absurd. If they had a good look, how come NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 480 F?

    Your invocation of the famous angle-cut column photo (with the firefighter standing in front) is ignorant or dishonest. Truthers now acknowledge that the particular cut in that photo was made by the clean-up crew.

  29. Judy Wood belongs in a mental institution, Senor, along with Morgan “no-planes” Reynolds, and you still haven’t posted an independent link to the use or even the existence of these alleged “milli-nukes.” Are they the special kind that doesn’t produce any measurable radioactivity? What did they do to the towers, since the steel in the debris showed only the effects of a gravitational collapse caused by plane damage and fires?

  30. Albury 12:50, a 40 pound ingot of formerly molten iron was taken from Ground Zero. That’s not anecdotal. Here’s a picture of it (slide 146) http://www.american-buddha.com/911.blueprintfortruthae.htm

    Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley, told PBS “I saw melting of steel at World Trade Center”. Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem wrote that “evidence of some steel melting was suggested by the photographs.” You continue to assert claims with no evidence even after you have been shown wrong. Here is a picture of a steel beam with yellow-hot steel dripping off its end. http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal

    The steel was scooped up with heavy equipment, dumped onto barges, and hastily shipped off to China. Obviously nobody “had a good look at it” because NIST has not one piece of core steel that supports its claims of heat damage.

    The angle-cut core column (with the firefighter standing next to it) that you cite was abandoned by the truth movement long ago.

  31. Albury 5:52, you continue to make confident assertions with no support whatsoever. How do you know what “everyone at GZ during the cleanup thought”? You also continue to ask the same questions that I have already answered, suggesting that you don’t even bother to read my posts. “Playing dumb” is a classic disinfo technique.

    What else have these phenomenal new explosives been used for? Umm, how about blowing things up? And a new explosive that doesn’t leave the usual chemical signatures would be of obvious use in covert ops. Use your head, man.

    Why would anyone except al Qaeda have wanted the 9/11 damage to have been greater than it was without the collapses? Because, as I pointed out, the towers standing would have been a monument to strength, not vulnerability, and Bush would have looked like an idiot with his bullhorn standing on the roof of the twin towers instead of standing on a heap of smoking rubble.

    Albury 6:04. Once again you make a confident assertion (“the steel in the debris showed only the effects of a gravitational collapse caused by plane damage and fires”) that is contrary to the facts. How do you know what the steel showed? Most of it was scooped up by heavy equipment and shipped away before experts could examine it. How does the gravitational collapse etc. explain the “melting of girders” seen by Dr. Astaneh-Asl, and the evidence of melting steel cited by Dr. Ghoniem?

    1. I’ve tried to address your responses point by point, Brian, while you skip over mine looking for something you think you can adequately address, and then don’t anyway. According to the text around your slide 146, the metal was not structural steel, so what was its alleged connection to a controlled demolition? The caption under your 2nd photo says that the glowing steel was being pulled out ~EIGHT WEEKS after 9/11, so once again, is that what explosives do in a real controlled demolition?
      I’m glad to hear that the 9/11 “truth movement” has finally distanced itself from the absurd claim that a column that was very obviously cut with an oxyacetylene torch is evidence of explosives, but that isn’t the only attempt at deception from Dr. Steven Jones; he’s also shown a photos of rescuers’ faces glowing from torches being used nearby, or from a halogen lamp they’d lowered into the debris, and claimed that it’s evidence of molten steel, which would have been peeling the skin off their faces if true. Please look at “Photo Phollies” at this link:


      Jones is the same 9/11 “researcher” who thinks rust, aluminum, silicon, sulfur, and some other explainable findings in WTC dust samples “REMIND” him of nanothermite, while providing no exemplars of anything for comparison.

      The claim that the WTC steel was shipped out too fast, and that no one had sufficient opportunity to look at it is simply false, as I’ve said several times before. ~236 pieces of structural steel are still in storage, either in Hangar 17 at JFK Airport:


      or at the NIST facility in Gaithersburg, MD. They were selected by engineers from the thousands of tons of steel that they looked at, and it also isn’t possible to load it up and ship it out without looking at it while doing it, so it was seen by plenty of other people, including union ironworkers and controlled demolition contractors working at GZ. Richard Gage has claimed that numerous columns had to have been cut simultaneously to cause what he thinks are collapses that happened too fast, so there should have been dozens, if not hundreds of columns pulled from the debris with exploded or melted ends, and I’ve yet to see or even hear of one. If something “cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter,” wouldn’t you expect to see a lot of severed steel with ends showing that they’d been cut through that way instead of broken?

      It’s great to cite prominent SEs like Dr. Astaneh-Asl, and you’re admitting that they actually saw the WTC steel, but completely ignoring the fact that they aren’t in the 9/11 “truth movement,” and don’t claim that anything they witnessed was evidence of a C/D. NIST has already said that steel may have melted in the debris fires under unusual conditions, but the discussion is about pre-collapse phenomena, and a few small pieces of steel that allegedly melted aren’t significant evidence of more than isolated anomalies.

  32. Dear Mr. Albury-bot,

    Your back-to-back postings on March 9, 2011 at 5:52 pm and 6:04 pm are precisely why you should be banned. You are just playing games and going over the same Q-group talking points over and over.

    How do YOU account for molten metal remaining molten for months, Craig?

    Why put the onus on Mr. McKee? Your lame explanations of debris fires doesn’t cut it. I’ve explained it several times. As fact-averse as ever, eh, Mr. Albury-bot?

    Everyone at GZ during the cleanup thought it was caused by the debris fires, but if milli-nukes did it, please prove that it’s even scientifically possible.

    What they thought based on incomplete information and massive amounts of misinformation (e.g., EPA’s declaration “all is A-Okay”) versus what really was the source are two different matters.

    Because in your game playing, you obviously missed the link, here it is again: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

    The rabbit hole goes pretty deep. You should take the rest of March to study it and give Mr. McKee a vacation. Or maybe Mr. McKee should leave you unpublished for the rest of March to give you time to study it.

    What else have these phenomenal new explosives been used for,

    What does it matter? Irrelevant to the discussion.

    why would anyone except al Qaeda have wanted the 9/11 damage to have been greater than it was without the collapses, and what happened to all of the radioactivity that no one noticed in the first place?

    This has been explained to you over and over again, and why I urge Mr. McKee to moderate your ass. While you are cooling your jets, you can start at the beginning of Mr. McKee’s blog and read through each article and its discussion. The very long list of reasons will become evident.

    Judy Wood belongs in a mental institution, Senor,

    Another reason to ban you. Another piece of evidence to prove your Q-Group agenda. Such a total smear with zip in substantiation. The Semaphore for 9/11 Truth has shown us the way!

    I’ve been recommending Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook, Where Did the Towers Go? The Albury-bot now confirms for his entire NSA Q-Group Team that this is something that all serious researchers for 9/11 Truth must look into.

    along with Morgan “no-planes” Reynolds,

    I’m not in a position to comment on this Morgan person you mention out of the blue, but I can comment on “no-(commercial)-planes” from September Clues (that dear readers should Google). The Albury Semaphore for 9/11 Truth is waving another flag regarding where truth seekers should direct their efforts.

    and you still haven’t posted an independent link to the use or even the existence of these alleged “milli-nukes.”

    Did too. Fact-averse and lying, eh? Yet another reason to ban you. You just haven’t done your homework to research it. Why? It is a rather deep rabbit hole. Take the rest of March to study it. Here it is again: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

    Are they the special kind that doesn’t produce any measurable radioactivity?

    Exposing both your ignorance and your agenda. 9/11 did have measurable radioactivity. But when one considers who did the measuring, who wrote the reports with the analysis of the measurements, that too much emphasis on particular types or levels of radiation is a red-herring, and lots of other govt spin from Q-groupies like yourself, measurable radioactivity is one of those things that we’ll get more accurately from first-responder ailments than govt reports.

    What did they do to the towers, since the steel in the debris showed only the effects of a gravitational collapse caused by plane damage and fires?

    Bullshit, through and through. Enjoy your retirement from Mr. McKee’s blog. You earned it.

    The first level of bullshit is the implication that all steel in the debris was even looked at and studied as if it were a crime investigation in order to make such a determination of only the effects of a gravitational collapse caused by plane damage and fires.

    The second level of bullshit proving you a liar (and justifying banishment to your own blog) are the many examples of “Swiss cheese” steel, bent steel, “meteorite” steel that clearly could not be caused by a gravitational collapse and the govt flat-out doesn’t have an explanation for. (But when you start looking into milli-nukes and Dr. Wood’s research, though, plausible answers come to light.)

    Tell you what. If you are too chicken-shit to create your own blog with your body of stellar work and arguments, here’s one you should go to: Mr. Rational. Tell Mr. CuriousPlumber88 that Mr. McKee and I sent you there. You guys are birds of a feather. In fact, Mr. Rational desperately needs your help. It appears his disinformation campaign ran out of steam in December.

    1. I agree with El Once here. Your position on the steel showing only gravitational collapse is well-known to be wrong. How about the column bent virtually in half with no apparent breaks. Gravity? And his point that most of steel was hauled away before it could be examined (also mentioned by Mr. Good)? Was this action justified, or would you have been happy to see a detailed analysis of the all the columns done? I’m curious.

      And as both of your critics assert, the idea that “everyone” believed they were debris fires, is totally irrelevant. I’m also sure it’s untrue.

      I’ve made the point before that I’m tiring of people engaging in personal attacks with nothing to back up their claim. Your comment about Dr. Wood is a good example. You disagree with her analysis (assuming you’ve actually read her stuff); that’s fine. A mental institution? Not cool. I’d avoid mentioning that again.

      1. If Judy Wood’s Directed Energy Weapon “theory” has any validity at all, please post some peer-reviewed information on this previously unknown phenomenon, Craig. Sixteen people trapped inside emergency Stairwell B survived the North Tower’s collapse, so did the secret energy beam just miss them or something? Regardless of how much anyone here wants to ban me from commenting, that isn’t science as we know it, and isn’t taken very seriously by legitimate scientists:
        I’d also suggest looking more closely at El Once’s posts if you’re tired of people engaging in personal attacks, since I’ve personally attacked no one who’s commenting here, and this “Albury-bot” is also tired of it.

        1. I make no claims about energy directed weapons. I may have an opinion once I read her book. But to make the comment that she belongs in a mental institution does nothing to enhance your position.

          As to El Once, he clearly thinks you are disingenuous in your comments. He explains why. As long as he supports his claims with examples, then I don’t see a problem; sarcasm is not a ban-worthy offense.

          A ban-worthy offense could be purposely leading a discussion in circles to confuse the issue, but elOnce has not done this. He is quite consistent in what he says. Sometimes your comments – about the bending beams being consistent with gravitational collapse – could make some people wonder.

      2. Do you have any doubt at all that floors collapsing from more than 1/4 mile up and weighing ~4500 TONS EACH will bend a cold beam or column up like a pretzel, Craig, without any assistance from explosives? The 9/11 “truth movement” claims that something instantly severed the WTC columns, although there’s no evidence of that, but are you claiming that it also uniformly heated up multi-story sections of them first?

  33. The photos of a WTC beam (actually a column) bent in half without cracking are evidence enough that it not only can happen but did, and steel is commonly bent cold. What science do you have to suggest otherwise?
    El Once can think whatever he wants about me, but he’s spending way too much time obsessing over banning me to explain why he thinks I’m being disingenuous about anything, and hasn’t supported his claim with any examples. Calling me “Albury-bot” and a “liar,” and my comments “bullshit” hardly contributes anything worthwhile to the discussion, whether it qualifies on here as a personal attack or not.
    I’ve posted a good explanation for my feelings about Judy Wood, which I hope you took the time to read:
    If there’s such a thing as a “milli-nuke,” it would certainly be written about in places other than conspiracy theorists’ web sites, so perhaps someone could post other links explaining this new technology. I’m pretty sure they’ve heard about Geiger counters in NYC by now, but if they aren’t radioactive “nukes,” let’s see what they are.

    1. The photo of the bent column is evidence that it happened? Yes, we can agree on that. But you’re suggesting that columns as large as that can bend in half cold without cracking. It’s up to you to show science that supports this claim.

      1. It’s up to you to present a plausible alternative hypothesis to what the ASCE, SEAoNY, FEMA, NIST, PANYNJ, and other engineers accepted as the cold bending of a WTC tower core column under the enormous pressure of thousands of tons of collapsing building debris. At this point, I don’t even know what you’re implying, but I’m unaware of any demolition explosives that heat columns from one end to the other, or any other steel severing technique that does. Structural steel is commonly cold formed into any number of shapes, and here are some examples of what fires do to steel:
        If that column is suspicious to you, have you even tried to find out where and in which building it came from?

  34. Albury 3/10 5:55

    NIST’s 236 samples prove my point that the steel was shipped out before experts could examine it. NIST’s samples do not show structurally significant weakening. Only 3 of rht 236 samples show heating above 480 F, and those three are not core steel.

    You repeat your ignorant claim that there were no columns with melted ends. I have shown you this picture three times! http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal

    Dr. Astaneh’s affiliations have nothing to do with the fact that he said he “saw melting of steel at World Trade Center”. NIST’s vague claim on what may have happened under unusual conditions, when they refuse to specify the conditions, is worthless.

    Albury 3/10 6:24

    Your claim that floors collapsed “from more than 1/4 mile up” shows that you are either relying on an authority that lies to you or you are making stuff up. Divide 5280 feet by 1365 feet. It’s less than 1/4, not more than 1/4.

    1. Actually Brian, I took the tower height of 1365′ and subtracted 1320′, or the number of feet in 1/4 mile, and found that the tops of the towers were at least 45′ higher than a quarter mile, so you may want to consider brushing up a bit on your arithmetic. By your method of calculating it, a result <4 indicates more than 1/4, not less, since you're dealing with a reciprocal number. The ~236 steel samples weren't just randomly picked by blind people; they were selections made by engineers and other investigators out of thousands that they looked at during the ~8-month cleanup at GZ, regardless of your bogus claim that it was all hauled away too quickly to have been inspected.
      Your link shows a piece of red-hot steel being pulled out of the WTC debris EIGHT WEEKS AFTER 9/11, not a column with a melted or explosively-cut end, and I still haven't seen any evidence of one, despite "truth movement" claims that hundreds of them were cut that way.

      Here's the link to NCSTAR 1, something you don't appear to be too familiar with:


      Please feel free to cite the section in it that you're quoting with these 480 F temperatures for the steel. Their burn tests under identical conditions and with comparable combustibles to those in a tower workstation produced upper air temperatures of at least 960 C, and that heats thin steel on bar joists within minutes to similar temperatures. You're also completely ignoring irrefutable evidence of columns that bowed inward more than 4' before buckling:

      and eyewitness accounts of it:


      NIST has not claimed that steel melted at all in the debris, only that it was possible, and what's really "worthless" is the claim that any molten steel or any other metal even a day after 9/11 is evidence of a controlled demolition, unless you know of explosives or incendiaries that are capable of generating that much heat for even 10 minutes, let alone for the weeks or months that it was reported to have been found at GZ.

      btw, Dr. Astaneh-Asl is an SE who was at the WTC looking at the steel, and he's not in your 9/11 "truth movement." You aren't an SE and weren't there during the cleanup, but are in the 9/11 "truth movement." Think about that for a minute.

      1. You’re right. My mistake on the reciprocal. It was late.

        The 236 samples do not support NIST’s claim that fires weakened the steel. 233 of them do not show heating above 480 F, and the three that do don’t show sustained heating above 600 C. See NCSTAR1-3, pp. xli, xlii, 94-99, 101, 132.

        In fact it is central to NIST’s thesis that these samples are not representative of the fire-floor steel (xlii). So take your choice: a) the sampling procedure was doomed by premature destruction of evidence, or b) the sampling procedure was incompetent, or c) NIST’s thesis is disproved by its own evidence. Which is it?

        You said there were no melted-end steel elements. That’s a melted-end steel element. How it got that way is for NIST to answer, and they refused to deal with the issue. We could easily test heat retention properties of structural steel by heating up the end to white hot and burying it in concrete dust for 8 weeks. Why didn’t NIST do that? Probably because they don’t want to know the answer.

        Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw “melting of girders at World Trade Center.” Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem cited photographic evidence of melted steel. Whether they are in the truth movement or not is irrelevant to those facts.

      2. What was your point in trying to correct a ~3.3% error, Brian, even if it hadn’t backfired on you, and the towers were slightly less than 1/4 mile high? Would my rounding off of 1275′ to “1/4 mile” have demonstrated that “[I’m] either relying on an authority that lies to [me] or [am] making stuff up,” or were you just obfuscating? The “1/4 mile” is from me, and I’ve never even seen NIST use it.
        You haven’t shown me the NCSTAR 1 section that states that structural steel never exceeded a temperature of 480 F in the fires, and it’s doubtful to me whether you’ve even read the report. You also completely ignored 2 links I posted to photos showing extreme deformation of perimeter columns in each tower, along with a link to eyewitness accounts of it, and are claiming that something right in front of thousands of people’s eyes didn’t happen because the fires weren’t hot enough to cause it. Do explosives make steel columns slowly bow inward for 45 minutes or so and then gradually buckle to trigger a global collapse, even without very suddenly scattering the smoke right before the top section starts falling, or making any deafening bangs that are heard miles away? That evidence is also on plenty of videos, and is not subject to debate.

        NIST can’t answer questions about suspicious-looking column ends in the debris because there simply were none found, and ~40,000 different people worked on the WTC cleanup for nearly 8 months. We already did the molten steel thing, and you still haven’t named even one known controlled demolition that’s produced it, or an incendiary or explosive that doesn’t start cooling in 5 minutes or less, even it’s buried in your hypothetical concrete dust, which wasn’t the way most of the concrete there was hauled out.
        Dr. Astaneh-Asl’s conclusions are extremely relevant, and he does not agree with yours, nor do any of these people:


        Please note the number on that list with doctorates and PEs. “Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.” is the SE of record for both towers, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl is also listed there, near the top. Do you know more than they do, or are they all lying to you?

  35. My other comment to this effect just disappeared for some reason, Craig, but what are you implying? That collapses of 500,000 ton buildings don’t produce enough force to bend a core column in two? Steel is routinely cold bent in fabrication, and fires and gravity cause steel beams and columns to bend also. Nothing that cuts columns heats them from one end to the other, so please clarify what you’re suggesting, and cite the science supporting it.

    1. Once again, you’re contending that this column could be bent in two without heat and without breaking. It’s up to you to provide the science. BTW, no comments have been intentionally deleted, so I’m not sure which one has disappeared.

  36. It obviously happened, Craig, and I suggested that if you thought it was suspicious, you should at least know which tower it came from and where it was in that tower, since it may have come from the fire areas. I can’t find the photo of the bent steel column you’re referring to, which I’ve seen before, so I can’t get that information for you without spending some time looking, but I have stated the rather basic and obvious fact that heat from fires causes steel to bend, that structural steel is routinely cold bent in fabrication, and that the forces during the collapses were more than sufficient to do it.
    You’re implying that it’s unnatural, despite the fact that steel is bent every day without heat, as it has been for centuries, and I still don’t understand where you’re going with this. Do you have a plausible alternative suggestion for how it got that way? Gravity causes deformations like that in controlled demolitions, not explosives, and if the columns were all cut up, as Gage and others have suggested, did that one just get missed?

    1. “It obviously happened” is not an argument. The question is how did it happen. You keep wanting to give me assignments and I keep telling you that you are the one who must prove your contention. You keep saying that steel can be bent while cold but you offer nothing to support this. It’s on you to do this, not me. You also say fire can cause heat to bend. It seems you can’t decide if it was heat that did this or not. Are you suggesting that the fire was responsible for the huge column being folded in half like a pretzel? Precedent?

      For the picture, just Google “World Trade Center steel” and you’ll see it in the second row. The link is a paragraph long for some reason, which is why I didn’t include it.

      1. As I explained before, Craig, the column could have been in the fire and softened up to cause it to bend when the tower collapsed, or it simply could have been cold bent during the collapse, and either would account for how it ended up in that shape. “It obviously happened” is a great argument for the fact that it did, and I still don’t know what you’re getting at. Reinforcing and structural aren’t heated in order to bend them, and enough pressure would easily account for that shape. Not knowing exactly where it was in the tower, I don’t have any way of knowing what it was subjected to in terms of heat or pressure, and you still haven’t told me what you think caused it. Do you have a precedent for explosives doing something like that? You’re underestimating what a falling 500,000-ton building can do, apparently.

        1. We’re definitely going in circles here. And “it obviously happened” is a great example. We know it happened. Why did it happen is the question. You are big on science, so please show me any science that proves that large steel columns can be bent in half without heat. I’ve already said the onus is on you to do this. You also have to demonstrate how the heat from a short-lived fire could heat a beam to the degree it could bend like that. I don’t have to have an alternate theory; all I have to do is show that the official story fails to hold up. I want a real investigation. You’re the one defending the official story. Show me something.

      2. Dear Mr. Albury-bot,

        Mr. McKee asked you:

        Please show me any science that proves that large steel columns can be bent in half without heat.

        In contemplating this endeavor, recall the words (slightly modified) of your pseudo-science hero, Dr. Dutch:

        We are Not Volunteering to do Your Research. We are not going to do extensive literature searches for you, edit a paper for you, co-author with you, or suggest a journal for you. The fact that you don’t know how do do these things – things any graduate student knows how to do – shows how unqualified you are to challenge science. This is like wanting to drive the Indy 500 and asking how to start the car.

        Also, given that you are on Mr. McKee’s blog, the following re-purposed words from Dr. Dutch apply as well:

        You Meet (Mr. McKee’s) Standards, Not the Other Way Round. This is not about satisfying your standards of proof. (Mr. McKee is) trying to figure out whether responding to you is a waste of time or not. If (he) refutes your point and you argue back, then you’re not honestly willing to have your ideas refuted and it’s a waste of time for us to proceed any further.

        This is Not a Symmetrical Relationship

        I also love this Dr. Dutch quote:

        If you are knowledgeable enough to come up with alternative answers to exam questions, you are knowledgeable enough to be able to figure out which answer is intended to be the correct one.

        This is indeed why you are being disingenuous, Mr. Albury, and thank-you for having Dr. Dutch point this out.

      3. If “all [you] have to do is show that the official story fails to hold up,” then please do that, Craig. If you don’t believe that the column could possibly have bent with thousands of tons of pressure bearing on it during a collapse that covered ~1/4 mile vertically, then how much pressure do you think was necessary to bend it? I’m unaware of any long piece of steel that can’t be bent under extreme conditions like that, and you haven’t even said what you think caused it. Show me a link to a story about it and I’ll try to find out exactly what it was subjected to on 9/11. Are you saying that steel columns can’t bend at all? Should it have broken instead? I don’t know what else to say; you lost me here.

        1. Another circle. I HAVE shown how the official story fails to hold up in almost 60 posts in the last 7 months. I will let that copy speak for itself. You defend the official story – which is a conspiracy theory. The onus is on you show that the physical evidence supports it and points to a gravitational collapse. You have to show some science to back up your claim. I am
          How much pressure was necessary to bend it? This is for you to answer. And it’s beside the point. You are saying the column can bend cold from pressure. Back it up.

  37. Dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

    El Once can think whatever he wants about me, but he’s spending way too much time obsessing over banning me to explain why he thinks I’m being disingenuous about anything, and hasn’t supported his claim with any examples.

    Just saying it is does not make it so. I regularly tear apart your postings line-by-line to prove why I think you’re being disingenuous about damn near everything. … Don’t get me started… Ooops. Too late. Here we go. Your last three postings jumbled together and shredded.

    Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

    Calling me “Albury-bot” and a “liar,” and my comments “bullshit” hardly contributes anything worthwhile to the discussion, whether it qualifies on here as a personal attack or not.

    Unless of course the levels of bullshit were dissected, not just by me, but by Brian Good. Unless examples of your lies were exposed [more below]. Unless your antics resemble that of a bot: repetitive demeanor, stringing together of illogical assertions, and never deviating from database talking points.

    I’d also suggest looking more closely at El Once’s posts if you’re tired of people engaging in personal attacks, since I’ve personally attacked no one who’s commenting here, and this “Albury-bot” is also tired of it.

    And I, too, tire of calling you it. The old expression of umpires — “I call it like I see it” — has applicability here. If you’d stop acting like a bot and a Q-Groupie in the subtle deceit that you peddle, not only would I stop with those jabs, I would also most humbly and respectfully apologize.

    Subtle deceit? Plenty of it in your last three postings alone, starting with:

    The photos of a WTC beam (actually a column) bent in half without cracking are evidence enough that it not only can happen but did…

    That is a deceitful piece of circular logic. You’ve taken two data points — a bent beam and gravity — and drawn a straight line through them which slopes in a manner to point away from any wrong-doing or other anomalous evidence. In reality, many more data points are in the collection that should be fitted to a curved line pointing to another conclusion closer to the truth.

    … and steel is commonly bent cold.

    You lack many qualifiers on the above, like “thin steel” or “special alloyed steel” or even “sheet metal.” Thick steel H beams like that used construction and in the towers is not typically bent cold. You make the assertion, so you prove it, where upon if merited, I’ll apologize.

    What science do you have to suggest otherwise?

    Exactly. Your subtle deceitful implication is that steel in the towers bent in half cold without breaking or cracking. Where is your science? Show me pictures of the foundry where they do such cold bending of massive steel beams.

    I’ve posted a good explanation for my feelings about Judy Wood, which I hope you took the time to read:

    First of all, are you claiming authorship of the above webpage? If so, then you do have a web voice and should really make more postings there.

    Second, this has nothing to do with [your] feelings about Judy Wood. It has to do with evaluating the evidence. Mr. Dutch took the liberty of re-posting a very small subset of Dr. Wood’s collected 9/11 images and added his own captions. His captions on the first two pictures are illustrative enough of an agenda and purposeful missing of the point.

    Dr. Wood wrote in her captions: “This fire seems to be very selective” and “Why doesn’t the paper burn?”

    Steven Dutch’s response was: “It’s only burning combustibles…” (as if paper that was all around isn’t combustible) and “the fire hasn’t reached it yet…” (as if the combustion point of the metal in the vehicles were lower than the wood in the trees and paper all over the ground which is why the fires happened first in the metal vehicles.)

    The rest of the responses do not get much better. Due to the selectivity of the images and the nature of Mr. Dutch’s comments, clearly the bigger picture to which Dr. Wood was driving is being obscurred.

    Regardless of how much anyone here wants to ban me from commenting, that isn’t science as we know it, and isn’t taken very seriously by legitimate scientists.

    Because the above was followed by the link to Steven Dutch of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin – Green Bay, the assumption is that he is such a legitimate scientist. In science, sampling can be an appropriate technique, but the cherry-picking performed by Mr. Dutch is not. Legitimate scientists are expected to thoroughly review the literature and the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Mr. Dutch did not.

    If there’s such a thing as a “milli-nuke,” it would certainly be written about in places other than conspiracy theorists’ web sites, so perhaps someone could post other links explaining this new technology.

    First of all, “milli-nuke” is a coined phrase by the Anonymous Physicist that I have adopted. My purpose for adopting it and promoting it is to re-frame the language to get people contemplating other magnitudes of destructive force and implementation, because “nukes” and “micro-nukes” have somewhat well established meanings in the public consciousness. Therefore, I wouldn’t expect it to be elsewhere on the web or in the literature under the “milli-nuke” moniker.

    Secondly, nukes are not a new technology. Small nukes aren’t new either. If there is anything new, it might be combinations of fusion-triggered fission nukes (or vice versa) that account for the actual measured tritium levels as well as the fizzling nuclear material after-effects.

    I’m pretty sure they’ve heard about Geiger counters in NYC by now, but if they aren’t radioactive “nukes,” let’s see what they are.

    Yep, and Bloomberg had a jihad for a little while there not all that long ago that would have made it illegal for citizens to own their own personal Geiger counters in NYC. Coincidence?

    If Judy Wood’s Directed Energy Weapon “theory” has any validity at all, please post some peer-reviewed information on this previously unknown phenomenon…

    No one on Mr. McKee’s blog has been promoting DEW as the definitive (or sole) mechanism employed on 9/11. I haven’t been convinced thereof, although I believe that some DEW weapons exist and am open to the suggestion of what they might consist of. I haven’t finished her book, but a convincing argument for DEW is being made in the 2nd half.

    It could very well be that DEW is a red-herring that is meant to be proven not-applicable to 9/11. But in debunking it, you have to address the evidence and explain it. If not DEW, then what? Milli-nukes (my premise)? If not milli-nukes, then what? Gravitational collapses and lame govt reports, don’t explain it: the entire bounds of your talking points.

    Dr. Wood in her fine textbook, Where Did the Towers Go?, provides much evidence and nuggets of truth that have been woefully under-addressed — nay rabidly ignored — by the govt in its reports that also fails many of the peer-reviewed criteria. Then so-called scientists like Mr. Dutch sweep it under the overarching kooky umbrella.

    There is no need to discuss too deeply other motivational factors that influence such peer-reviews, like where 90% or more of the funding for their studies comes from: the federal govt. The politics of scientific organizations (what gets published, what gets funded) is involved in the peer-review process, and as such the politics of presidential administrations who dole out the funding can exert influence.

    The govt commissioned stilted studies: “Given X, Prove that Y is Plausible.” Of course, when extreme X conditions are considered, certainly funded scientists can perform tests and write reports that prove Y could be plausible. Limiting the plausible conclusions to only Y while ignoring V or W in the framing of the research is but one of their underhanded tricks to dupe the useful idiots or bots, such as yourself.

    Sixteen people trapped inside emergency Stairwell B survived the North Tower’s collapse, so did the secret energy beam just miss them or something?

    Bingo. You got it. Or the energy beam was turned off before it got to that point while the falling mass continued it is destruction on the lower floors. Or the last milli-nuke in the tower — maybe due to the destruction raining down upon it — had its blast wave mis-aligned.

    It’s up to you to present a plausible alternative hypothesis to what the ASCE, SEAoNY, FEMA, NIST, PANYNJ, and other engineers accepted as the cold bending of a WTC tower core column under the enormous pressure of thousands of tons of collapsing building debris.

    Please provide the exact references to where ASCE, SEAoNY, FEMA, NIST, PANYNJ, and other engineers propose, support, and defend as definitive “the cold bending of a WTC tower core column under the enormous pressure of thousands of tons of collapsing building debris.” Work with Mr. Dutch put this onto his website at the University of Wisconsin.

    This is deceitful on two levels. First, I suspect those reports are in line with “Given X, Prove that Y is Plausible.” None of those reports will conclude “Given X, it is proven that Y is Definitive on 9/11.”

    Second, the evidence proves that heat and/or other massive forces were a given on 9/11, so all of this cold bending discussion is really bending over backwards to ignore the evidence and other plausible explanations.

    I’m unaware of any demolition explosives that heat columns from one end to the other, or of any other steel severing technique that does.

    I fully agree, but we aren’t discussing “demolition explosive” with the implication being “conventional” and “traditional” and emphasis on “explosives” to mis-frame the discussion. One of your subtle deceitful techniques.

    The topic was DEW and/or milli-nukes that would heat columns from one end to the other and more logically explain steel beams bending without breaking or cracking under the gravitational forces.

    Structural steel is commonly cold formed into any number of shapes, and here are some examples of what fires do to steel:

    In your confusion, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You talk of cold forming without showing examples and imply this was what was happening on 9/11, and then launch into what very hot fires can to to steel under pressure.

    If that column is suspicious to you, have you even tried to find out where and in which building it came from?

    Sounds like a good homework assignment for you, if nothing else to prove that there were “cold conditions”.

    Mr. Albury-bot, you’ll be happy to know that I’m banning myself from posting to Mr. McKee’s blog (until the end of the month plus or minus a couple days). So if you find yourself heavily moderated (or banned), it will your own doing that moved Mr. McKee to such actions and not my urging.

  38. Convincing someone who doubts whether one steel column can be bent cold under the enormous pressure of a tower collapse is as futile as trying to demonstrate to a doubter that 767s going ~500 mph can sever tower perimeter columns, Craig. Can you take a piece of mild steel and snap it by bending it in two one time? You’re creating a false anomaly here around a phenomenon that no competent engineer would or even did question, and there were plenty of them at GZ and/or involved in the WTC collapse investigations.
    This video was made more than 3 years ago, and the link to it has recently been reactivated:
    I personally can’t comprehend how any rational person could still believe the WTC controlled demolition “theory” after spending the ~47 minutes necessary to watch the whole thing. It’s well beyond unlikely that huge office buildings could be secretly demolished in a busy metropolitan area; it’s literally impossible.

    1. Mr. Albury, you are on thin ice here. You’ve been repeatedly asked to provide some evidence for your claim that this kind of pressure would bend a steel column without heat and without it cracking. You continue to refuse to address this. Instead you repeat your point over and over. I will watch the video you cite when I can, but I would prefer that you simply provide the evidence directly that you say is so obvious. The few minutes I’ve seen joins the chorus of people accusing truthers of being not just wrong but dishonest. This seems orchestrated. Can’t people be wrong without being liars? Also your video compares the WTC to controlled demolitions without considering that the WTC event was intended to look like a collapse. So showing how it differs from conventional demolitionsdoesn’t cut it.

  39. Here’s an excellent video for anyone still reading this thread, Craig:
    It was also in my last comment, which didn’t post after awaiting moderation for a while. Did you know that its creator, Mark Roberts, has received death threats from members of the 9/11 “truth movement” simply for debunking their claims with facts like the ones in that video? Kevin “Jihad” Barrett wants him executed, and some punks of the Loose Change site posted info on where to find him, and offered to furnish a gun.
    Real class act, huh?

    1. I don’t know if what you say about the threats is true (I’d want more than just a string of quotes on a web site), but it’s not terribly important in the big picture, which is determining what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Obviously I don’t agree with anyone being threatened for what they say, but I’m not basing my case that 9/11 was an inside job on the behaviour of anyone in particular.

      I have a question for you: if you opposed everything the Truth movement stands for, why do you spend so much time on 9/11? It seems that ignoring it would make more sense if there’s no basis for its claims. What do you hope to accomplish?

  40. Ive been reading the comments on both sides in this thread, trying to keep an open mind, (Ive recently renewed my interest in the 9/11 tragedy and am trying to do a little digging) and actually have been surprised at the information Ive seen coming from both sides.
    Having said that, I still find the “controlled demolition” theory to be unfounded, based mostly on heresay, doctored videos / photos, assumptions and so on.

    The things that have hit me like a shot of cold water to the face are:

    1. The flash at the tip of the planes as they hit the buildings
    2. What was underneath the planes, and were they really commercial airliners?
    3. The seemingly perfect fall of WTC7
    4. The complete lack of any plane debris, and the appearance of the damage to the Pentagon, doesnt even remotely look like a large airliner slammed into the building.

    Ive yet to find any solid answers on any of these.

    The whole C/D theory and the freefall business, is just nonsense. If everyone just take a step back for a moment, Common logic would tell you that at least half of the support beams in both buildings were severed where the planes hit (just by looking at the video, which all of us have done 500 times), and would result in the many, many tons of weight above to come down. I think it is a testimony to the design of the building that they stood as long as they did. Before 9/11, Im sure most people would tell you that they believe a commercial ariliner hitting ANY skyscraper would bring it down right away. They actually stood for a while. Had demolitions been used in addition to the planes, they would have come straight down. And you cant possibly believe that the demolitions would be intact right where the planes hit. I doubt ANY pilot is good enough to hit a skyscraper at the exact floor needed. If you look at plane 2, it appears his aim was very poor.
    Again, Im approaching this with logic, evidence from both sides, and common sense.

    Mr. McKee, it also appears Mr Albury has been repeating himself, only because people arent getting it, wether he be right or wrong.
    Senor appears to have added very little, except insults, belittling, and trying to remove the credibility of someone he disagrees with. If anyone were to be banned, I would think (in most forums) it would be him. I also think Albury was very patient with him, I would not have been.

    a couple comments I find very odd that people cant understand are:
    “You keep saying that steel can be bent while cold but you offer nothing to support this”
    Since when can ANY metal NOT be bent with enough applied pressure, and also being as there was LOTS of heat inside both of the towers (9500lbs. of fuel burning off?) I dont even see why cold and steel are even mentioned in the same breath when discussing 9/11. Even if some WERE cold, you ever see a train wreck? MUCH more force was applied here. I dont even get where this point could even be discussed any further. Steel is not diamond. It has a bending point, and a breaking point. Period.

    Also: “Thermite cuts without making explosive sounds. The core columns of the building were hollow 16″ X 32″ box columns. There was plenty of space inside for hiding explosives or incendiaries”

    Half of the C/D theory is based around people claiming they “heard multiple explosions, like you would in a demolition.” Yet we saw no fire (other than what the planes created), flashes or explosions, etc.
    So which is it? You cant have controlled explosions powerful enough to bring down a giant building, yet theyre silent and invisible. Theres no way, and this isnt Star Trek.

    It seems most of the arguments surrounding the whole thing are too focused on one tiny point or another, without keeping the big picture in mind. If you focus on something hard enough, you cans ee whatever you want to see, on either side.

    1. You would have to back up your comments that controlled demolition is based on heresay, doctored videos/photos and assumptions. Please give concrete examples.
      Your concerns are worth pursuing (Building 7, no wreckage, etc.), but surely the collapse of the towers provides more unanswered questions? How do you conclude that it’s nonsense? With all due respect to your common sense, you assume facts with no basis. It is your explanation for the collapse that is nonsense. Doesn’t the Building 7 issue make you wonder more about the towers?
      Your comments about a plane being enough to bring the towers down are based on nothing. The buildings were designed to take the impact of a 707 going slower than the 767s were supposed to be going.
      How good of you to come to Mr. Albury’s rescue. It’s almost as if he never left. Mr. Albury is a specialist in the circular argument, and I came to believe that he was being deliberately obtuse. I asked him for some documentation to show that a steel beam could bend in half without heat. He couldn’t. He just ignored the question and kept turning it back on me. Tiresome and repetitive.

      As to Mr. El Once: while you may not have appreciated the tone of his remarks, he supported hi s arguments with considerable detail. He actually addressed points instead of being disingenuous.

      And keep in mind this was not SUPPOSED to look like a controlled demolition, so asking where the flashes were is missing the point. It was done so it would look like a gravitational collapse.

      You say we should focus on the big picture, and I agree. But you don’t tell us what that is. I look forward to reading your version of the big picture.

    2. Rob,

      To me it is obvious that the towers did not “collapse into their own footprints” as the mantra on TV programmed into the truamatized viewing audience on 9/11.

      The visual evidence is very clear, the buildings erupted with great explosive force from the very first initiation of the distruction.

      If you look at the profile of each building you will see ejecta blowing out far beyond the frame of the structure. You will see steel beems weighing thousands of pounds thrown hundreds of feet laterally. And this destruction continues in a blast wave all the way to the ground–through what should be a totally intact structure below the strike points of the airplanes.
      Physically impossible–a building cannot fall through itself, the structure must be fragmented first.

      It is not merely my subjective analysis. The resulting debris pile shows a mere ten percent of the heavy materials inside the footprint [see: FEMA Debris Map] the rest of the millions of tons of structural steel, some in several ton sections have been hurled nearly a city block, and cover the entire 13 acre area of the World Trade Complex.

      The explosions were taking place behind the cloud of falling debris for the most part, and inside the building. However if you watch closely you CAN see squibs going off further down the demo-wave.

      “If you focus on something hard enough, you cans see whatever you want to see, on either side.”

      This is balderdash. If you pay attention to what you are really seeing there is only one thing there, what actually happened.


  41. A number of analyses have been presented which indicate that there are elements of the official account of the attack on the Pentagon which are false but it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.1

    It was not until the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was received
    from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)~Legge*Stutt

    Why is NTSB considered as a viable organization? Like NIST, like the 9/11 Commission, they are an arm of the government. Who can verify that the flight data isn’t totally bogus, and completely manufactured?

    Have we been given any evidence to verify a chain of possession?
    No, merely the assertions of a government agency.

    To my mind this makes the FDR a moot point.
    The physical and photgraphic evidence of the crash site is best evidence, as it cannot be determined that the FDR is not a plant of bogus information in any reliable sense.


  42. Well, this was another great example of someone who truly knows we’ve been lied to, that the truth of it all is that lies are involved.

    Lots of facts here to consider for someone searching for answers. I personally feel sound awake but at the same time also like to know that my feeling awake is more than just a sleep induced feeling and nothing more. It’s not. I’m awake. 9/11 was an inside job. I wouldn’t have said that 4 or 5 years ago, but I am so very grateful to have woke myself up. Maybe it was the loud snoring that did it for me.

    I am aware that the Truth Movement has been implanted from day-one with what has been described as government agents wishing to disrupt from within, to trolls, and more. David Ray Griffin authored a recent book regarding this very thing when he summed up how a Mr. Cass Sunstein, a well respected lawyer and government insider to President Obama, proposed that the 9/11 Truth Movement be disrupted from within, calling the organizations for truth, dangerous to national security.

    To someone’s security, for sure. But not national security, when it’s more like self-protection, more dark action to continue to protect and prolong the darker lies of 9/11.

    It’s making it more difficult, at times, for me personally to fight when I feel drawn into some actual conspiracy or another and thereby weakening my own beliefs in 9/11. I continue to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but find I at times have become susceptible to what is truly idiotic positions when it comes to 9/11 subjects. Keeping in basic sight the official version for 9/11 is what restores my thoughts, thank goodness for that. I know that I don’t know and yet believe and reject what makes in my own mind utter nonsense. Just more of the PsyOps hard at work to confuse and divide us all in thought and action.

    I too agree that we have no rights trying to force anyone in a given direction when it comes to dissecting the official version of events. There are certainly many subjects to research; we must not contention to generate between the ranks behaving otherwise because it is ALL important. There are certainly military secrets that we can glean little understanding of while banging our head up and seemingly go nowhere; while other aspects exist which are not so military in nature, the science and understanding of basic physics for example that can’t be protected or limited by a bully in the room. The heck of it is, some of that PsyOps stuff is really quite fascinating, and even seemingly possible, but there again go I…

    WE must maintain our composure and drive and seek an honest and thorough investigation into the happenings of 9/11 as soon as possible as one has not been accomplished to date.

  43. Oh dear, Albury is at it again.
    I would encourage anyone who is interested (not many of you) to google “albury smith” 911
    you will see the same sentences and links posted over and over again.
    Its amazing how quickly this muppet spam-bot finds 911 related articles and hijacks all debate.
    Same stuff over and over again.
    So very boring, Albury.
    Soooo very boring.

    1. Dear Mr. LomBeeeer,

      Every 9/11 website and blog should experience an Albury-bot… in small measure. And it is very instructive when readers take your advice and do a google: “albury smith”

      Of course, Mr. McKee and I didn’t have that luxury into well into our exchanges when the ego of the bot had him post links to places where he was banned. I’m sure we would have found some dirt just by googling “albury” and been able to dig from there, but respecting a participant with the initial benefit of the doubt is important, because real people do change, evolve, and reform; I know that I and my internet avatar have evolved in the opinions I hold. The red-flags are when there’s no evolution, no admission of wrong, no acknowledgment of anomalies & questionable things, and a complete & undying belief in the govt’s version.

      I must commend Mr. McKee for his diligence in maintaining the high road through out, because when you see how quickly the other discussion forums degraded with tit-for-tat obscene flame wars even before Albury’s bot-ness becomes self-evident, it also becomes clear how that is a tactic to distract from the core 9/11 messages and divide.

      Allowing the bots and trolls some say has value beyond the Hollywood rules regarding conflict being interesting. Pointing out the errors in their reasoning is powerful to the greater message of truth. When they are forced to be respectful on McKee’s home court and when they are called on their merry-go-round antics and circular arguments, it really takes much wind out of their sails.

      Albury and his ilk rarely have blogs of their own and must default to what google digs up on them, assuming they can be trusted to maintain a consistent avatar between forums. Why? Because when their body of work is consolidated together (whether or not they include passages from their opponents), the disinformation becomes not just glaring but hilarious. And an agenda orthogonal to the truth is exposed that has few rational explanations except paid-to-post and orders from their employers.

  44. Albury Smith sat on the uncensored.co.nz website every day last

    year for about eight months until I blocked him.

    The following quote sums up his behavior there pretty well:

    ‘A paid back-room mole to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room, message board,

    and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and chaos

    as possible

    which constantly litters and pollutes the

    soup;effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel’s

    central role in 9/11.

    A seeming obsession with minutiae where

    researchers spend an inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating

    on the tiniest of details without stepping back and exposing the

    bigger picture and its subsequent ramifications.

    Or else they’ll

    engage in rhetorical debates for debate’s sake; all of which is

    sterile, self-contained, and circular in nature.’

    9/11: Enhanced and Stabilised WTC1 Video (BBC World News)

    Explosions clearly visible :

  45. I don’t know if Albury Smith is just pathetically ignorant, too stupid to comprehend the obvious or just a paid shill. For the time being, I choose paid shill with a hidden agenda. The only two (2) Albury Smiths I can find in a People Finders search are women living in Oklahoma and/or Florida, Albury Carol Smith, a.k.a. Carol A. Smith, and Albury Catherine Smith, a.k.a. Catherine A. Smith. This makes it appear that this name (Albury) is feminine, not male. In either case, I don’t know whether to despise this person for the misinformation or just feel sorry for this pathetic excuse for a human being.

    1. I don’t know who Albury Smith is but he/she has been banned from this site since 2011. Interestingly, I received a couple of short comments from him/her in recent days, accusing me of hypocrisy for denying him/her “free speech.”

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