What About Building 7? profile picture

What About Building 7?

wtc_7

About Me

You are reading this for a reason.

Namely, because there is information here that NEEDS to be seen. This profile contains an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence that directly refutes the official story regarding the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Much of this evidence comes in the form of news footage from the day itself. Upon viewing this footage, you will find that what was captured on that day paints a very different picture from what most people believe. Most of this footage was NEVER seen again on any network after being aired on 9/11. If you are skeptical about my claim, I can assure you that I was once very skeptical myself. All I ask is that before judging the intentions of this page or dismissing its contents, you take the necessary amount of time to read what is written here, explore the links and view the videos.
A note about the videos: All of the videos on this page are very short. The longest is 7min 30sec and most are under 5 minutes. They are streaming videos so they dont begin to load until you press the play button. IF A VIDEO IS CHOPPY, simply press pause and let it load for 30secs until the gray bar is a bit longer, then unpause the video and it will play normally.
WHAT ABOUT BUILDING 7?
Everyone in America believes that they know what happened on 9/11. And yet most people are so ill-informed regarding the events of that day that they are unable to correctly answer even the most basic of questions. For example, if a poll were to be conducted that asked the question, On September the 11th, 2001, how many skyscrapers completely collapsed at the World Trade Center in New York City? the vast majority of respondents would answer quite assuredly by saying, two.
And yet this is NOT the correct answer. In fact, there were THREE skyscrapers that totally collapsed on 9/11. The third was World Trade Center Building 7, which was NOT hit by an airplane. But how could anyone be blamed for not knowing this bit of information? Since 9/11, the total amount of news coverage dedicated to this collapse has been infinitesimally small compared to the amount spent on the twin towers. On the day of 9/11, however, the collapse was shown several times.
Watch the Video to see the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
At the time of its collapse, Building 7 was housing the CIA, SEC, IRS, Secret Service and Mayor Giulianis Office of Emergency Management, among others. Here is a complete list of Building 7s tenants: What Was In Building 7?
From the video:
Dan Rather: For the third time today- Its reminiscent of those pictures weve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite.
Dan Rathers first instinct was that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 looked quite a bit like a controlled demolition; that is, when a building is intentionally rigged with explosives to cause its collapse. Despite the very strange manner in which it fell, the collapse of Building 7 was NEVER shown again on television after 9/11/01.
Actually, there is one exception to the above statement. On the one year anniversary of 9/11, PBS aired a documentary called, America Rebuilds which briefly discussed building 7. You saw the relevant section in the above clip, and you met Mr. Larry Silverstein. Thats not a household name in America but without doubt, it should be. Mr. Silverstein became the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex a mere 50 days (less than two months) before the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Silverstein explained the collapse of Building 7 by saying:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
As demonstrated by a later clip from the same film, the word pull is a controlled demolition term. You can hear a demolition team member at the WTC saying, were getting ready to pull building 6 right before building 6 is brought down by controlled demolition. (Just so that there is no confusion, the controlled demolition of building 6 occurred long after the 9/11 attacks as part of the reconstruction process. I am just using that event to demonstrate what the word pull means.)
This statement raises some disturbing questions: How could the fire marshal and the leaseholder of the building set up and execute a controlled demolition in just one day? And on the most chaotic day in the NYFDs history? The preparation for a controlled demolition takes far more than 8 hours. And since the building had been evacuated, why would bringing it down by controlled demolition help prevent more loss of life? In fact, Mr. Silversteins statement is impossible. If the building was brought down by controlled demolition, it would have taken several weeks to plan and execute. As I previously stated, this was the first time that the collapse of Building 7 had been shown on television since 9/11. Presumably, this was also the first time that Mr. Silverstein had been questioned about its collapse.
Mr. Silverstein was a very successful businessman prior to 9/11, but he was even more successful afterwards. From wikipedia:
Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5].
For more details on Mr. Silverstein, go here: Silverstein Properties
After making this statement, Mr. Silverstein refused to respond to the many questions that were asked by those who were curious to know just what exactly he meant. Several YEARS later he finally decided to clarify this statement, saying that pull it referred to pulling firefighters out of the building. This answer seems illogical enough as it is, since it is not grammatically correct to refer to firefighter as it, nor are firefighters ever mentioned in his statement, but when you consider that the governments FEMA report claims that there were no firefighters in the building to begin with, it makes even less sense. From the FEMA report:
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.
The FEMA report, which was released in May of 2002, was supposed to explain the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 . From the report:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
For more information on the original FEMA report, go here: FEMAs WTC Building Performance Study
So the government report is claiming that despite the admitted low probability of occurrence, the collapse of Building 7 was caused by fire. What the report fails to mention is that there has NEVER been a steel framed building that has collapsed from fire, anywhere on the planet, prior to or since 9/11. World Trade Center Building 7 was made out of solid steel and like most skyscrapers was structurally redundant, or overly supported. As we can see from the photographs, the fires that were burning inside of WTC 7 were not very severe.
For a better understanding of this, we should put these fires into perspective. In 2005, the Windsor building in Madrid caught fire. It burned for nearly 24 hours with raging fires spreading across many floors.
Unlike WTC 7, the Windsor building in Madrid was NOT made out of solid steel, but rather out of steel reinforced concrete, which is far inferior. And yet despite that, the Windsor building did NOT collapse. Here is a photo of the building the next day:
More information on the Windsor building here: Madrid Skyscraper Fire
Although this may seem strange when compared to WTC 7, it is not surprising to most engineers. Like I said before, there has NEVER been a steel framed skyscraper that has collapsed from fire, anywhere, ever! The only exception occurred on 9/11. For more details, go here: Other Skyscraper Fires
So how is it possible that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse? I think we can all agree that the fires within that building were nowhere near as severe as the fires in the Windsor building.
Now watch the two CLOSE UP shots of the collapse of WTC 7 again:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
In the first shot, you can see quite clearly that the rooftop penthouse begins collapsing a split second before the rest of the building does. It looks like it is sinking in to the center of the building. In the second shot, you can see that the roofline sort of kinks in as illustrated in this next picture:
And if you look very closely at the right side of the building, you can see what appears to be a series of explosions running up the wall. You have to look to the VERY far right to see them, almost to the right edge of the screen. Here is a close up photo of what I am referring to. See if you can find it in the video above.
How does fire explain these two characteristics of the collapse? Since the FEMA report failed to adequately address these issues, the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) organization went one step further and claimed that World Trade Center Building 7 was structurally damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers. In April of 2005, they began releasing preliminary reports that claimed it was this damage combined with the fires that caused the collapse. As evidence of this structural damage, they presented this photo:
According to NIST, this photo proves that the southwest corner of WTC7 was damaged between floors 8 and 18. For more details, go here: Claims of Severe Damage to Building 7
However, the NIST reports also omit some key facts. First, they dont mention that there were several other buildings that were CLOSER to the twin towers than WTC 7 was, and that those buildings were also hit with debris, and yet those buildings did NOT collapse. For example, observe the following two pictures:
These photos are actually deceptive in that they make WTC 7 appear closer to the twin towers than it really was. But even still it is undeniably that WTC 7, which is in the forefront of the pictures on the left side, was not nearly as close to the towers as the tall, dome-topped building behind the white building on the right side. That building is literally being rained down upon by debris! And yet, that building did not collapse.
To show the true location of WTC 7 in relation to the towers, consider this:
The buildings marked 1 and 2 are the Twin Towers. Obviously, WTC 7 is the building marked with a 7. The closest wall of Building 7 was over 300 feet away from the closest wall of the Twin Towers, and there was WTC Building 6 and Vessey Street between them.
Now consider that the supposed damage to Building 7 in the above photo from the NIST report is only on ONE corner of the building. If this damage caused the collapse, why isnt it an asymmetrical tipping? Shouldnt the building have fallen OVER instead of collapsing straight down symmetrically? Observe the following clip, in which a building that has been structurally compromised by an earthquake collapses.
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
And finally, the contention that structural damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 makes absolutely NO sense when the timeline is considered. Tower One of the WTC collapsed at about 10:30 AM PST. Tower Two had already collapsed about 25 minutes earlier. But Building 7 didnt collapse until about 5:20PM, almost 8 hours later. If Building 7 had been structurally compromised from the collapse of the twin towers, why did it take 8 hours for the structure to fail? And there was no noticeable fatiguing of the structure until about 10 seconds before it completely collapsed. How is that possible?
To make the claim that structural damage caused the collapse of Building 7 seem even more preposterous, lets take a look at the amount of structural damage done to the Murrah Building after the Oklahoma City bombing. Here is a picture of the Murrah Building:
Clearly, the damage to this building is exponentially greater than the damage to Building 7 seen in the picture taken from the NIST report. And yet, the Murrah Building did NOT collapse. A demolition crew had to come in and bring the rest of the building down!
At this point we realize that there MUST be another explanation. Is it just a coincidence that Silversteins statement seems to indicate that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and the collapse of Building 7 has all the characteristics of a controlled demolition? To further illustrate this point, lets compare the collapse of WTC 7 with stock footage of several different controlled demolitions:
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
In all of the above footage, we can see large amounts of dust pouring out of the base of each building. We can see that the buildings collapse VERY quickly, almost at a free fall speed. We can see that the buildings collapse straight down, almost symmetrically. And we can see that the roofline seems to dip in first. Sometimes we can see small puffs of smoke coming out of the walls of the building.
It is easy to understand why a controlled demolition looks this way. After studying the design of the building, explosives are rigged to the key support columns and when detonated, cause them to fail simultaneously. From wikipedia:
Large buildings, tall chimneys, and increasingly some smaller structures are destroyed by building implosion using explosives. Imploding a building is very fast (the collapse itself only takes seconds) and an expert can ensure that a building falls into its own footprint, so as not to damage neighbouring structures.
Here is a photo of the collapsed remains of Building 7:
Does that fit the description of an implosion by demolition given by wikipedia? More to the point, how could fire have caused the building to collapse almost completely in its own footprint? You may also notice that white smoke is still pouring out of the wreckage in this photo. Fire does not cause white smoke.
But this brings us to another key point. If the collapse of Building 7 was caused by explosives, than the wreckage of the building could be testing for the signature traces of explosive devices, such as the presence of powder or chemical compounds. Since World Trade Center Building 7 was the first steel building in history to collapse solely from fire, surely the wreckage was carefully studied so that safety regulations could be improved? In fact, such a study is demanded by the National Fire Protection Associations Guide for Fire and Explosive Investigations, which is designed with the safety of firefighters in mind.
And yet, the entirety of the steel from the wreckage of Building 7 was removed, melted down, and shipped overseas before being thoroughly investigated! In the January 2002 edition of Fire Engineering Magazine, which is a 125 year old industry standard, the Editor in Chief Bill Manning wrote:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
He also wrote:
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
For the full article, go here: Burning QuestionsNeed Answers
The month before, Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the New York Times as saying:
I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.
Moreover, the destruction of this steel was in DIRECT violation of federal crime scene laws. However, the destruction of important information was also a signature element of the collapse of Building 7 itself. After its collapse, it was revealed that many important documents had been destroyed within the building. Some of these documents were being subpoenaed in ongoing investigations. From the NY Lawyer:
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."
Also inside World Trade Center Building 7 was Mayor Guilianis OEM command bunker which had recently been renovated with $15 million worth of improvements. Actually renovated is not quite the right word since the upgrades included independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. These improvements were made ONLY to the 23rd floor.
The fact that the collapse of this building has been completely and utterly IGNORED by the media is disturbing to say the least. There was one recent exception that must be mentioned. In 2005, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven E. Jones appeared on the Situation Room with Tucker Carlson to discuss the collapse of Building 7.
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
Youll notice that the first two times Professor Jones mentions the collapse of Building 7, Tucker Carlson immediately changes the subject.
From the clip:
JONES: Id like to look at the collapse of Building 7 in just a minute. It was not even hit by a jet, so we should look at that-
CARLSON: ok, but-but, the two towers..
Later:
JONES:I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building 7, because most people havent actually seen that one, and thats the crux of the argument that Im-
CARLSON: Ok well sum up very quickly the argument for us.
He also refuses to play the clip of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
CARSLON: You make these claims, or appear to make these claims. Do you have any evidence at all that there were bombs in the building?
JONES: Sure, sure. Lets start with the collapse of Building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
CARLSON: Ok Im not sure if we can.
Professor Jones then describes the collapse and Carlson cuts him off again.
JONES: And if you look at the collapse youll see, what Ive studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle- thats called the kink- which is very characteristic of course of controlled demolition-
CARLSON: Alright, Pr-professor I am sorry that we are out of time.
But Professor Jones keeps going.
JONES: Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.
CARLSON: Right.
JONES: And yet all scientists, now -reasonably- agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? Its direct evidence for the use of high temperature explosives such as thermite. Thermite produces molten iron as an end product.
CARLSON: Ok.
For the complete transcript, go here: Questioning What Happened on 9/11
Shortly after this interview aired, Tucker Carlson wrote about it on his MSNBC blog. He stated:
When one of my producers first told me about him, my first thought was: Stephen Jones is insane. And he may be.
How exactly did Tucker come to this conclusion? What exactly about the above interview makes Professor Jones seem INSANE? Mr. Carlson continues:
If you saw last night's show, you know what an uncomfortable six minutes it was. If not, I'll summarize: Jones was almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest. Yet - and here's the interesting part - he seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers. Some who e-mailed were offended that Jones would dare question the official version of 9-11. Some were confused by what he was trying to say. But the overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my "courage" in putting him on, and to complain that we didn't give him more time to explain the conspiracy. In other words, a lot of people seem to think it's possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings.
Carlson concludes:
So of course most of the people who wrote to say they think the government might have been behind 9-11 don't really think the government might have been behind 9-11. For whatever reason, they just like to say so. Which as far as I'm concerned makes them phony and irresponsible. Incidentally, we still have an open mind here on the Situation, even after Professor Stephen Jones. So if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately. I promise.
To read Tucker Carlsons complete blog, go here: 9/11 Theorist Clearly hits a Nerve
Heres a question for Mr. Carlson. If Steven Jones is insane, then to show the collapse of building 7?
And on that point, why has EVERY single major news outlet completely IGNORED the collapse of this building? It has only been seen one single time on television since 9/11 and that was a wide shot on a PBS documentary. If Mr. Carlson is so open minded, why wont he SHOW BUILDING 7 COLLAPSING?
Even more bothersome is the fact that the 571 page 9/11 Commission report doesn't make a single mention of the collapse of Building 7. Its like it never happened. (More info on the 9/11 commission later)
The contention that Professor Jones is insane is insulting and an obvious attempt to smear him, as was most of the interview. To see just how different the interview could have been if Mr. Carlson had not been so hostile, compare it to a segment about Professor Jones that was shown on a local Utah news channel.
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
From the clip:
NEWS ANCHOR: Later that day World Trade number 7, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than 7 seconds.
Later:
ANCHOR: A crazy theory Brian, or any validity to this?
MULLAHY: Well Professor Steven Jones got an e-mail today asking, are you some kind of nutcase?, and actually hes written an academic paper for peer review, its been well received, he says, among his colleagues at BYU, and its essentially this: the building fell on September 11th not from the planes but from explosives that were intentionally set.
And they actually SHOW the collapse of Building 7!
JONES: It doesnt topple over as you might expect from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of pre-positioned explosives in a controlled demolition.
Professor Jones is clearly nowhere near insanity. However, when the audience is NOT ALLOWED to see what he is talking about, it makes it a lot easier to dismiss him. In his 25 page paper, Professor Jones links to a video of the collapse of Building 7 and then writes:
What did you observe?
--Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) or did it topple over?
--Speed: How fast did the southwest corner of the roof fall? (Students and I measure [6.5 +- 0.2] seconds; time it!)
--Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or squibs. Note that reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally.
Obviously, viewing the collapse is a crucial part of this argument. The manner in which a building collapses is without doubt one of the best ways to determine the cause of the collapse. How can Tucker Carlson claim that he is open minded and then refuse to allow this evidence to even be VIEWED on his program?
To read Professor Jones paper in full, go here: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
In March of 2006, Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen went public with his questioning of the official story regarding the 9/11 attacks, largely due to his concern over the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Heres a section of the interview he did with nationally syndicated talk show host Alex Jones: (speaking about Building 7)
ALEX JONES: Obviously youve seen the films, youve seen the news footage. There are clear blast points going off down the sides, you see the central column get blown, you see the penthouse cave in, the perfect classical (sic) demolition, and then it falls in on its own footprint. Can you specifically talk about the video youve seen and those blast points?
CHARLIE SHEEN: Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say, Yes, that is a random event caused by fire, really needs psychiatric evaluation.
To listen to the complete interview, go here: Charlie Sheen: Challenge Me on the Facts
In the ensuing weeks, Mr. Sheen was ruthlessly attacked by television news and newspapers alike who attempted to smear him by bringing up aspects of his personal life. Not ONE SINGLE national media source even MENTIONED the collapse of Building 7. So once again, if Charlie Sheen is crazy, just like Professor Steven Jones, then shouldnt it be easy to prove him wrong? Charlie went so far as to personally write the London Guardian, one of the biggest papers in the UK, and request that they address this issue. He wrote:
Do a little research on Building Seven. Building Seven lives at the epicenter of my entire debate. Prove yourself worthy of genuine investigative journalism. Look at the video evidence.
The full request is here: Charlie Sheens Statement to the London Guardian
Instead the paper chose to write about Charlies alleged drug habits and his role in the film Ferris Buellers Day Off. Despite all of the hit pieces, a CNN.com poll that was up for a week and received over 50,000 votes resulted in 83% of respondents agreeing with Charlie Sheen! To see the poll, go here: At Final Count, 83% Support Sheen on 9/11
While the mainstream media tried to dismiss Sheen as a lone nut, the reality is that he was just one more member of a rapidly growing movement within this country and around the world. The 9/11 Truth Movement, as it has been called, is easily the most important thing happening in this country today. To see the complete Sheen coverage, go here: 9/11 Truth Hits the Mainstream
In the same interview with Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen made the following statement:
If theres a problem with Building 7, theres a problem with the whole damn thing. And guess what? There is a SERIOUS problem with Building 7.
And as you are going to see, there really is a problem with the whole damn thing.

THE TWIN TOWERS


On January 25, 2001, Frank A. Demartini, an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, was asked about the structural stability of the twin towers. He said:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Of course, the planes that crashed into the twin towers were 767s, but in reality they are only slightly larger than a 707. Here is a comparison:
For more details, go here: Towers Design Parameters
You may recall that when the towers did in fact collapse, the shock was overwhelming. The public was told that the collapses were caused by a pancaking of the interior floors after the support columns were weakened from the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires. Officially, the jet fuel created a large inferno inside the towers that heated the steel to the point that it lost most of its structural integrity. When the floors that were impacted by the planes could no longer hold their own weight, they collapsed down upon the floors below them, which in turn collapsed down upon the floors below them, and so on. To illustrate this phenomenon, the FEMA report gave us this graphic:
At first this may seem like a viable theory, but several aspects of the collapse directly refute this explanation. First, the collapse time for each tower is somewhere between 10 and 15 seconds. The 9/11 Commission itself describes the south tower collapse by stating:
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud.
For the full official timeline, go here: Heroism and Horror
The south tower was 110 stories and stood 1362 feet tall. If each floor in this building had pancaked down upon the next, and the total collapse time was 10 seconds, that would mean that each floor had less than 1/10 of ONE SINGLE SECOND to collapse down upon the floor below it.
But even more disturbing is that the speed of gravity is not fast enough to allow this to happen. It is actually a very simple equation, known as Galileos law of falling bodies, that allows us to calculate the speed of falling objects over a given distance. Here is a simple explanation of it: Galileos Law of Fall
There are really only two key things that need to be understood about gravity to realize that the pancake theory is impossible when the fall time is considered.
1 All objects fall at the same rate. The weight of an object has NO effect on the speed at which it falls. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about gravity and for this reason, people often believe that it was the incredible weight of the twin towers that caused them to collapse so quickly. This is simply NOT TRUE
2 The speed of a falling object accelerates over time. In other words, the longer that an object falls, the faster it will be falling. Makes sense, right? If you doubt either of these two points, go here: The Way Things Fall
This second point is important because there is a fundamental difference in speed between a free falling object and any object that is encountering resistance, I.E. a floor that is pancaking. For example, the fall time for a brick that is dropped 100 feet is going to be much faster than the combined fall times of 10 bricks that are each dropped ten feet. The bricks that were only dropped ten feet did not have the chance to accelerate in the same manner that the free falling brick did. Again, the longer something falls, the faster it goes.
So how long would it have taken an object to free fall from the top of the twin towers? Say, for example, that you were standing on the roof of the south tower, which is 1362 feet tall, and you dropped a bowling ball over the edge of the building. How long would it take for it to hit the ground completely unobstructed by anything? There is a website online that calculates this information. You can enter in one single aspect of the equation, either fall time, speed or distance, and it will calculate the rest for you. To conduct this experiment yourself, go here: FREEFALL
I entered in a distance of 1362 feet and the calculated fall time was 9.2 seconds! In other words, the south tower completely collapsed in less than one second longer than it takes an object to free fall from the same height. For all intents and purposes, the collapse of the south tower was a free fall!
In fact, the collapse of the north tower, which was recorded at 15 seconds, is also essentially a free fall. Consider that the above free fall equation with regards to the bowling ball is not even taking air resistance into account, which would have added to the fall time. The real life collapse of any building that is as structurally massive as the twin towers should offer up some amount of resistance to any collapsing floors. To further illustrate this point, Physicist Judy Wood graphed the time needed for a progressive collapse or pancaking of the South Tower using one floor intervals. Here is that graph:
She calculated that if one of the towers had pancaked, it should have taken 87.9 to 96.7 seconds! Thats well over a minute and certainly nowhere near 10 to 15 seconds. To view Judy Wood's entire work, go here: Analysis Of Collapse Time
Also, the official explanation regarding the collapse makes little sense when you consider that the South Tower was hit second and yet it collapsed first. Not only that, but the North Tower was hit straight on while the south tower was hit at a bad angle. The trajectory of the plane that crashed into the south tower was so bad, in fact, that it caused a very large amount of its jet fuel to explode outside of the building. Here is a photo of the impact into the south tower:
You can see that the majority of the damage was done to one of the corners of the building and that most of the fuel did indeed explode outside. The impact of this plane could not possibly have damaged the entirety of the south towers core, which consisted of 47 steel columns. This photo helps illustrate that:
So if the North Tower was hit first, and was hit head on, why did the south tower which was NOT hit head on collapse first?
There is also a considerably amount of evidence that refutes the idea that plane crashes caused raging infernos within the twin towers. If you look at any photos or video from the twin towers after the impacts, you will be hard pressed to find large flames anywhere. There is a good deal of smoke but most of it is very dark and appears to be oxygen starved. More on this later! Here is the impact hole in the north tower:
There are clearly people who are standing in the impact hole. If the planes impact had cause a raging inferno inside the tower, how did this woman manage to climb to the very edge of the hole?
To attempt to answer these questions, we need to look at some of the news footage that was aired on 9/11. For whatever reason, none of this footage has ever been aired again.
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
From the clip:
REPORTER: Then a fire marshall came in and said we had to leave because if there was a third explosion, this building might not last.
WITNESS: It just went BA-BOOM, it was like a bomb went off, and it was like holy hell coming down those stairs, and when we finally got to the bottom ans we were coming out, on the mezzanine level there, and another explosion
WITNESS 2: It sounded like gunfire, yknow, BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG, and then, all of the sudden, 3 BIG explosions.
FIREMAN: As we were getting out gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was an, uh, heavy duty explosion.
REPORTER 2: When youre down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes
ROSE ARCE: Every few minutes youll hear like a small sort of rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street.
RICK SANCHEZ: Police have found what they describe as a suspicious device and they fear that it might be something that could lead to another explosion.
WITNESS 3: We started walking down the stairs, we get to the 8th floor- big explosion. It blew us back into the 8th floor.
REPORTER 3: Then there was a second explosion in the same building. There were 2 explosions.
PAT DAWSON: Chief Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off, he tried to get his men out as quickly as he could but he said there was another explosion which took place and then, an hour after the first hit here there was ANOTHER explosion that took place in one of the towers.
REPORTER 4: There were 2 or 3 similar HUGE explosions and the building literally shook, you literally shook at the base of this building.
PETER JENNINGS: Anybody whos ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if youre going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure
The above clips are nowhere near the entirety of first or second hand accounts of explosions within the twin towers on 9/11. Many of the witnesses, including the firemen themselves, reported that the lobby of the north tower looked as if a bomb had been detonated inside. On the morning of 9/11, Richard A. Siegel was in Hoboken across the river from Manhattan. After the impact of the planes, Mr. Siegel began videotaping the chaos at the World Trade Center from Hoboken Pier. A brief portion of his film shows that an explosion DID occur after the impact of the planes.
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
In the first clip you can hear a definite explosion and you can see that smoke is rising up from the base of the north tower. The entire film recorded by Mr. Siegel is available to view here: 9/11 Eyewitness
The firefighter interviews were taken from the film Loose Change: Second Edition.
From the clip:
FIREMAN 1: I wasnt expecting to see the damage that I saw in the lobby.
FIREMAN 2: The lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there.
Not mentioned in the above clip is WTC employee William Rodriguez. A 20 year maintenance worker in the north tower, Rodriguez was declared a hero shortly after 9/11 because of his bravery in aiding the rescue efforts of firefighters and police. Since 9/11, Mr. Rodriguez has become one of the loudest voices for the 9/11 Truth Movement. He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions. All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a mans arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact? In October 2004, Mr. Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal government, alleging that they were complicit in the attacks. Here is a press release from the lawsuit: WTC Rescue Hero Sues Bush
Here is the preface to the lawsuit: Trial By Jury Demanded
But lets get back to the firefighters. The Naudet Brothers, two French documentary filmmakers, just happened to be filming at the Twin Towers on 9/11. The captured many of the NYFD firefighters in action. Take a look at this discussion between two firemen about 9/11:
Watch it:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
From the clip:
FIREMAN 1: Floor by floor it started popping out.
FIREMAN 2:It was as if they had detonated- as if they had planned to take down a building.
A year after 9/11, the recorded communications between New York City Firefighters and the NYFD Dispatch were made public after a long legal battle. The tapes included a large amount of material, of which only a short portion is heard in the above clip. To listen to the tapes in their entirety, go here: The 9/11 Tapes
On the tapes are undeniable references to secondary explosions occurring within the twin towers. The tapes also DIRECTLY contradict the official explanation that a raging inferno was burning inside the twin towers, as it is revealed that firefighters reached the 78th floor and found only two isolated pockets of fire. For more details, go here: Excerpts from Firefighters WTC Tape on 9/11
It is also undeniable that all of the WTC collapse footage shows large amounts of gray dust being blown out of the twin towers many floors BELOW the collapsing area. The following photos depict this phenomenon:
These dust clouds are spread out too far to be the results of air pressure, which would be more uniform. Also, we can see that the dust is being thrown out a considerable distance in relation to the size of the building. As previously mentioned, with a controlled demolition explosives are planted along KEY support columns and are then detonated to cause a rapid implosion.
What about the presence of red hot molten metal in the World Trade Center wreckage? In the above clip, you heard a WTC worker testify to the intensity of the heat that remained well over a month after the collapse.
From the clip:
WTC WORKER: This is six weeks later- almost six weeks later and as we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter. It looked like an oven, it was just roaring inside, its a bright bright reddish orange color.
Although you couldnt actually see this molten metal in the above clip due to the enormous amount of steam pouring out of it, the following photo taken from the WTC illustrates what he is talking about:
How is it possible that fire alone could have caused red hot molten metal to remain this temperature a full SIX WEEKS after 9/11? In fact, it is difficult to imagine fire melting steel at all, let alone with this kind of intensity, especially considering that fire has NEVER been able to bring down a steel building in any other instance. Among those who were disturbed by this molten metal was Kevin Ryan, an employee for Underwriters Laboratories, Inc (or UL), the company that certified the steel used in the original construction of the Twin Towers. On November 11, 2004, Mr. Ryan wrote a letter to NIST team member Frank Gayle regarding the government investigation into the WTC collapse. Here is an excerpt:
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
Later in the letter, he writes:
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
To read the letter in its entirety, go here: UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study
As BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones previously mentioned, high temperature explosives such as thermite produce molten iron as an end product. The presence of molten metal in the WTC wreckage is consistent with the use of high temperature explosives. Thermite has a very unique appearance, and the chemical reaction it creates is also very unique. Here is a photo of a thermitic reaction that is taking place in a controlled experiment:
You can see that the color of the thermite is very yellowish at the center, with orange sparks around the perimeter. This clearly does NOT resemble any kind of fire. Now click the following link to view a rarely seen home video of the WTC immediately before the collapse: Camera Planet 9/11
Here is a photo taken from the footage linked to above:
Professor Jones has come to the conclusion that thermite was indeed used on 9/11 to bring down the twin towers. On April 10, 2006, the Deseret Morning News reported that:
He (Jones) told college professors and graduate students from throughout Utah gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:
First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane. But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish. Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.
Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.
To read the full article, go here: Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC
For a more in depth article about the use of thermite at the WTC, go here: Thermite Identified as Culprit of WTC Collapse
To see Professor Steven Jones giving an powerful presentation on the impossibilities of the official 9/11 story and the evidence for controlled demolition, go here: 9/11 Lecture at UVSC by Professor Steven E. Jones
Professor Jones is by no means the only member of the professional community who is presenting evidence that refutes the official theory. One of the first people to highlight the discrepancies of the government account was Christian Theology Professor David Ray Griffin. I had the great pleasure of hearing Dr. Griffin speak earlier this year, and I can tell you that he is a very intelligent and well spoken individual and he is a vital part of this movement. In the above clip you saw a him make a brief statement about the impossibility of fire causing the Twin Towers collapse.
From the clip:
DR. GRIFFIN: Never before in history has a steel framed high rise building collapsed simply because of fire. On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed within 10 to 16 seconds- almost free fall speed.
Dr. Griffin has written two books so far about 9/11. (Update: He now has a third book!) Both are very well written and contain an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. For more information about Dr. Griffins books and to read an in depth essay about the WTC collapse, go here: The Destruction Of the World Trade Center: Why The Official Account Cannot Be True
Both Professor Steven E. Jones and Dr. David Ray Griffin are members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth (linked to at the bottom).
In 2005, MIT Professor Jeff King went public with his doubts about the official 9/11 story. I strongly suggest you watch the following video, which contains more eyewitness reports of explosions as well as a detailed analysis by Professor King. Watch it here: MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition This video is only 15 minutes and I STRONGLY suggest that you watch it!
The private company that was assigned to clean up the WTC wreckage was none other than Controlled Demolition, Inc. They are the leading demolitions company in the world, specializing in imploding skyscrapers into easy to remove pieces of similar size. Look at a comparison of these two photos:
The first photo is of course of the twin towers collapsing. The second photo is of a building that is being demolition by CDI. For more details about CDI, go here: Controlled Demolition, Inc

My Interests

I'd like to meet:

Now here is a video of the Seattle Kingdome implosion done by Controlled Demolition, Inc.
Watch It:
.. width="425" height="350" ..
You will notice that there are several distinct characteristics of this controlled demolition. Namely, there are a series of flashes that occur just prior to the collapse as well as a series of crackling sounds. These are both the results of explosions occurring on the support columns of the building.
So if a demolition had indeed taken place, surely many people would have noticed these explosions or heard them and then reported it? In fact, there are dozens of eyewitness statements made by emergency personnel that describe this EXACT scenario. Consider the following quotes:
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Timothy Burke -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing that first tower come down was unbelievable. The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall.
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching.
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north.
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. [It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.)
We are standing there and the first thing that happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out. Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing. I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out.
Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and that's when that building collapsed. It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.
Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.
David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.
Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.
For a complete list of these statements, go here: New York Times 9/11 Records
Id also like to point out that these statements were made after the pancake theory had already been offered up as an explanation of the twin towers collapse, so the witnesses who mention it are not necessarily coming up with it themselves. And as you can see from their statements, many of them are not fully convinced that the pancake theory explains what they saw on 9/11.
You may have also noticed that several witnesses describe the top of tower 1 blowing. Tower 1, or the north tower, had a large antenna at the top of it. In the collapse videos of this tower, you can see that the antenna begins to collapse a split second before the roofline does (similar to the collapse of Building 7). The governments own FEMA makes mention of this as well. From the report:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
For a photo analysis of the collapse of the North Tower, go here: North Tower Collapse Video Frames
The north tower, like Building 7, collapsed straight down with the central columns failing nearly simultaneously! How is it possible that BOTH of these collapses were accidental? The idea that steel buildings will simply collapse in on themselves because of fire or structural damage makes little sense when you consider the vast amount of planning and skill required to execute a controlled demolition. For example, consider this quote from demolition expert Tom Harris from the year 2000:
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first.
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in progressive collapse-- this is common in controlled demolition.]
At this point, I think we should be able to agree that the evidence for demolition at the WTC is overwhelmingly strong. But naturally, many questions are going to arise. I will be updating this profile with more information periodically, but in the meantime I am sure that many of your questions can be answered here: More Videos Because the evidence for controlled demolition is so strong, those who refuse to believe it often change the subject to another aspect of the 9/11 attacks to make the governments involvement seem less likely. A common argument is that this would involve a massive conspiracy with many hundreds of people and that the government is far too inept to pull something like this off. However, as you will see this kind of false-flag terror operation would only require a relatively small group of criminals within the government to carry it out, and that group does indeed exist.
THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
Formed in 1997, the Project For A New American Century (or PNAC) is a neo-conservative think tank with one core goal: creating American Global Supremacy. Their definitive document was released in September of 2000 (one full year before the 9/11 attacks) and is called Rebuilding Americas Defenses. In this document, the members of PNAC note that there is an incredibly opportunity for America in the post cold war era to expand its influence over the globe. They outline several key steps needed to do so. From their report:
This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.
Then later:
In particular, we need to:
Establish four core missions for U.S. military forces. 1)defend the American homeland. 2)fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous theater wars. 3)perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions (in other words, police the key areas of the world) 4) transform U.S. forces to exploit the revolution in military affairs.
Other goals stated in the report include:
Reposition U.S forces to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe(the Middle East) and Southeast Asia.
However, the report notes that in the current climate, the military expansionism that is desired will not be possible. They note that the military does not have the funding needed to maintain a global presence, nor the popular support. Their report concludes that:
The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Here is an online version of the full report: Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF)
Here is the PNAC website: Project For A New American Century
So who exactly are the men behind PNAC? Its members include Dick Cheney (Vice President), Donald Rumsfeld (Head of the DOD), Jeb Bush (Governor of Florida), Paul Wolfowitz (Head of the World Bank), and many others who have all come into positions of prominence since the 2000 election. In fact, prior to George W. Bush coming into power in 2000, Paul Wolfowitz had no policy making experience whatsoever, having been a political advisor. George W. Bush appointed him to the head of the World Bank. The entire Bush presidency has been one big PNAC victory, with many of its members being appointed to key positions. PNAC member John Bolton became the US ambassador to the UN, while PNAC member Zalmay Khalilzad became the ambassador to Afghanistan and then Iraq. For a quick review of the PNAC principles and its key players, go here: PNAC
Now lets take a look at how these people came into play on 9/11.
Watch it: .. width="425" height="350" ..
Heres the perfect example of how this small but powerful group controlled the events of 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld as head of the Department of Defense ordered that the control of NORAD be handed over to Vice President Dick Cheney a few months prior to 9/11. On 9/11, Dick Cheney failed to order the launch of any fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes until after it was too late. The entire NORAD agency was made useless by TWO men: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Both are members of PNAC.
What about the drills that the Pentagon was running prior to and on 9/11? Here is an article from USA Today about that very subject: NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
There is so much more information out there regarding the NORAD fiasco on 9/11, the war games that were taking place and Cheneys role in the whole thing that I simply dont have space to post it all. Please take it upon yourself to research these details further if you doubt their validity.
So what about George W. Bush? Interestingly, he is not a member of PNAC while his brother Jeb is. Of course, its not so surprising when you consider the differences between the two men. Noone could ever accuse George W. Bush of being the mastermind behind anything. However, the connections between his family, the CIA and the 9/11 attacks are overwhelming.
Watch it: .. width="425" height="350" ..
Here are some links about executive order W199i which George W. Bush signed prior to 9/11 to prevent the FBI from investigating the Bin Ladens and Al-Qaeda:
US Agents Told To Back Off Bin Ladens
FBI Claims Bin Laden Inquiry was Frustrated
Agent Claims FBI Supervisor Thwarted Probe

MORE UPDATES COMING SOON!
Most people don't use critical thinking. They don't analyze the situation objectively and then come to the most logical conclusion. Instead, most people draw all of their conclusions at an early age and spend the rest of their lives seeking to justify them. If they come across a piece of evidence that contradicts what they believe, they ignore it. If that piece of evidence is persistant in their lives, they learn to hate it. Their decisions and beliefs become the product of emotion, not fact, and as a result, they are easily manipulated. The mainstream media in America knows this. They use people's emotions against them as a weapon. They control people with fear, hatred, and anger. And they never present all the facts.
Are you one of those people? Perhaps we all are in some sense. But there are many people who have decided to ask questions in the face of authority, with the primary interest being the truth.
Check out this group:
Here are some great links:
WTC 7
9/11 Research
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
What Really Happened

My Blog

Debunking Popular Mechanics

Perhaps the most commonly cited source of the supporters of the official 9/11 story is the March 2005 Popular Mechanics article. In this blog I will demonstrate how this source uses deception and...
Posted by What About Building 7? on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:03:00 PST

RETURN TO REALITY!!!!

I thought I would post this exchange since the arguments used by Paul are common among those who buy the official government version of 9/11.  Here is the first original email he sent me: -------...
Posted by What About Building 7? on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:22:00 PST