“It Fell in Silence: The Collapse of World Trade Center 7″

By Nathan Janes at PUPAGANDA.com:

Many Americans are unaware that three buildings within the World Trade Center complex fell on Sept 11, 2001. Located just 300 feet from the North Tower,World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was a forty-seven story steel framed building, which collapsed vertically in 6.5 seconds more than 6 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers. Although the collapse of the towers was televised hundreds of times in the days following 9/11, the collapse of WTC 7 was seldom shown or discussed. The widely publicized 9/11 Commission Report fails to mention the collapse of WTC 7 in its 568 pages. Looking beyond the limited information provided by the mass media about the fall of WTC 7, a number of questions arise.

Construction began on WTC 7 in 1984; it was opened to the public in 1987. The building had 47 stories, was 570 feet tall, and had 81 support columns with 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns spanning from basement to roof. If it were located elsewhere, it would have been the tallest building in more than half of the states of the nation. The 50,000 square foot building housed offices for The Department of Defense, the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service; outside of Washington D.C., it was the Central Intelligence Agency’s largest facility. New York City’s Office of Emergency Management’s Operations Center was on the 23rd floor where it served as an emergency bunker for the mayor with its own air supply and generators.

On the morning of 9/11, several of the surrounding buildings were damaged when the towers fell. Building 3 was nearly split in half; nine-story Building 4 was almost completely crushed; Building 5 suffered severe structural damage and fires; and Building 6, located between the towers and WTC 7, suffered a giant hole in the center of the building.  Despite all of the heavy damage, none of these buildings collapsed.  The damage sustained to WTC 7 paled in severity when compared to the other buildings surrounding the Towers.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal agency of the US Department of Commerce, was tasked with investigating the collapse of WTC 7. Despite two high-level government workers as well as many others witnessing explosions within the building, NIST released it’s final report on August 21, 2008 stating that the collapse of WTC 7 was solely due to fire.  In the time before the collapse of WTC 7, there were fires on the East face of the building, between floors 11 & 12, on the North face between floors 7 & 12, and on the West face between floors 29 & 30.

By 3:00 pm the Chief of the Fire Department of the City of New York, Daniel Nigro, setup a collapse zone around WTC 7. Video footage shows firefighters and police warning many of the volunteers and on lookers that the building was about to collapse with exchanges heard such as,  “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon,” and, “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” Prior to the building collapsing, it was reported by both CNN and BBC that WTC 7 had fallen. At 5:21 pm, WTC 7 fell into it’s own footprint in approximately 6.5 seconds. Before 9/11, no other steel buildings throughout history had ever collapsed due to fire alone. Not even steel buildings with fires many times larger than those that WTC 7 suffered had ever collapsed. How did the fire department, police, and news stations know that such a collapse was about to occur?

Prior to the NIST report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) assembled a volunteer team of engineers to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. The engineers found that temperatures of 1,000 °c or 1,800 °f were present in all three of the buildings that collapsed. WTC 7 was reported to have only isolated office fires; the burning of only office material could not reach fires of this temperature. In its final report, NIST states that the collapse of WTC 7 was specifically due to thermal expansion of one support beam on the 13th floor that failed and then caused one column to collapse triggering a progressive collapse of the rest of the support structure. This theory does not match the evidence collected by researchers independent of NIST.

Professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the University of California as well as scientists at the US Geological Survey studied steel from WTC 7 and found that it had been subject to temperatures much higher than even 1,800 °f.  These researchers found that steel from the building had reached the temperature of vaporization, nearly 2800 °f, and that atoms in the steel had formed compounds with sulfur. Sulfur is found in explosives and lowers the melting point of steel.  Researchers also found evidence of a thermite reaction and active thermitic material in dust collected from the scene. Thermite is an incendiary, which can be used to cut through steel.

NIST further ignores evidence that refutes its theory when it fails to explain why the building fell at free fall or gravitational acceleration for 105 feet. One theory that explains this occurrence is that of controlled demolition, which would have allowed the top floors of the building to fall without resistance. This evidence is consistent with video footage that reveals a crimp, a classic mark of implosion, developed in the center left top of the building as it began to fall. The crimp could have been caused by one of the central columns being blown at the base of the building causing the building to fall in on itself, rather than in an outward direction.

In the years since the buildings fell, the federal government has earned harsh criticism for their handling of the investigation of 9/11. It is almost unbelievable that no steel was recovered from WTC 7 for the NIST investigation and that the agency failed to test dust from WTC for incendiaries. One may ask how an investigational report can be trusted as accurate and thorough when the evidence of the crime has been so assiduously mismanaged and disregarded. Engineers and scientists are stepping forward to publicly reject the official explanation of the collapse. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which represents over 1,200 professional architects and engineers as of 2010, is calling for a new investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 as well as the twin towers.

The number of Americans learning of the evidence refuting the official explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 is growing. The mass media continues to ignore the call by millions both within and outside of the United States for a new investigation.  State crimes against democracy have been recognized by American social scientists as an area of criminality needing to be studied in a scientific manner. Although we are beginning to recognize the criminality within our government, we have yet to hold individuals accountable for the most serious of crimes. Let’s take back our country. Review the evidence for yourself. Refuse to allow corruption to further erode our republic and undermine popular sovereignty.

-download article

PUPAGANDA WTC #7 Truth Info-Card
4″ x 6″
Make infocards and hand them out with DVDs

, , , , , ,

  • Bob

    i saw something about this a long time ago. supposedly there were big fuel tanks in the middle of the building that were to power the backup generators in case of a power failure. the explosion people heard were those tanks going off.

    • paulie

      No, according to NIST, that fuel was recovered.

  • Cerebralcaustic

    >The damage sustained to WTC 7 paled in severity when compared to the other buildings surrounding the Towers.

    Depends on how we define “paled”. In WTC7, there were fires on floors 6-30, with the largest “massive” fire on floors 11 and 12. Due to low water pressure, firefighters weren't too effective. Additionally, firefighters were worried the building might collapse. From the Wikipedia page on WTC7: “At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.”

    >Video footage shows firefighters and police warning many of the volunteers and on lookers that the building was about to collapse with exchanges heard such as, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon,” and, “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” Prior to the building collapsing, it was reported by both CNN and BBC that WTC 7 had fallen.

    Precisely: firefighters were worried the building would collapse, and, naturally, they cordoned the area and warned people away.

    >Not even steel buildings with fires many times larger than those that WTC 7 suffered had ever collapsed.

    Citation needed. I've heard this claim many times since 9/11, but have yet to see it supported with reliable evidence.

    >How did the fire department, police, and news stations know that such a collapse was about to occur?

    The fire department and police _strongly suspected_ the building was likely to collapse because a) WTC7 had suffered structural damage from debris from WTC1 and 2; b) WTC7 had been devastated by a “massive” fire; c) WTC7 was bulging and creaking; d) WTC1 and 2 had collapsed a few hours previously after suffering structural damage and massive fires. Given these data, it seems sensible to suspect that WTC7 might also collapse.

    >Professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the University of California as well as scientists at the US Geological Survey studied steel from WTC 7 and found that it had been subject to temperatures much higher than even 1,800 °f.

    This sentence seems to contradict a later sentence from the article: “It is almost unbelievable that no steel was recovered from WTC 7…” Was steel recovered, or not?

    • GUEST

      I don't know what site you copied and pasted from, but your information doesn't even line up with the final report from NIST?

      >Professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the University of California as well as scientists at the US Geological Survey studied steel from WTC 7 and found that it had been subject to temperatures much higher than even 1,800 °f.

      This sentence seems to contradict a later sentence from the article: “It is almost unbelievable that no steel was recovered from WTC 7…” Was steel recovered, or not?

      DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE???
      It is almost unbelievable that no steel was recovered from WTC 7 for the ……..”NIST INVESTIGATION”
      THERE WAS NO STEEL COLLECTED FOR THE NIST INVESTIGATION”

    • GoodDoktorBad

      Quoting Wikipedia? If you think thats a reliable source, you're beyond stupid.

      Guess what, 3 buildings free falling into there own footprints without demo charges planted at there base
      is ludicrous. Anyone who has ever seen a controlled demolition, or studied basic physics knows this is impossible. Perhaps if the two main towers had toppled over -breaking off near the points of impact where the planes hit and smashed building 7 in the process. That scenario might be believable.

      You're argument, (if you can call it that) is completelty devoid of logic, and obviously tangled with the fear
      of facing the reality of massive conspiracy, of which if faced, would mean the end of every illusion you hold dear. Today, you present yourself as “posterchild” for all the folks who are afraid to look at the frightening reality of 911 and what it means to know that you're little world of self delusion will crumble like a crouton if the truth were actually and officially known.

      Forget all that, your just an idiot…..

      • http://www.theamericanbookofthedead.com Henry Baum

        In addition to Building 7, a compelling argument is why did the two WTC towers fall identically when they were hit in dramatically different places?

        • GoodDoktorBad

          A compelling point indeed -one among so many. People will believe anything that supports there continued blissful ignorance. Hide their eyes, the truth is too painful for some….

      • Tuna Ghost

        Guess what, three buildings didn't fall into their own footprints, buddy. Otherwise surrounding buildings wouldn't have been damaged so heavily. That is another statement commonly made that isn't true but nevertheless believed by people dying to have a conspiracy to make their lives more interesting.

        I find it amusing when people with no knowledge of engineering or architecture or physics say things like “if you have any knowledge of physics”. Self-awareness, kids. Get some.

    • Honuman

      I know it's hard to even consider that the country you were raised in and taught was safe and supporting might not be that way in reality but you sound desperate with your arguments. I think if you do nothing else, you should focus on the way the buildings collapsed which are picture perfect examples of controlled demolitions. And WTC 7 is a blatant example due to the lack of any other viable reason for it's collapse. Really, if you're open minded enough to look at the evidence for what it is rather than what you want it to be you'd have to realistically accept the fact that there was at least another hand at work that day. I'm not saying Bush and Cheney are behind it because I have no idea but the evidence is clear that the buildings didn't fall because of the planes and certainly in WTC 7's case, by fire.

      • Tuna Ghost

        I sincerely doubt that the WTC conspiracy deniers are simply having trouble accepting that their government does not always have their best interests at heart. Thinking so displays a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

  • Namelesswon

    yada yada yada
    so a bunch of crooks got together and hoodwinked some dumb ass mericans again. They did it with JFK and more blatantly with Martin Luther Kings, oklahoma. One easy death in broad daylight to a world televised mass killing. The real conspiracy or mystery is why the general concensus of opinion and most people in general are blind to their own government's nefarious activities. Once we attack and destroy the things that do not allow free thought, then we can get on with conspirartorial expose`s.

    • Honuman

      I know you're being facetious but I don't think you can just dismiss these things as yet just one more example of crooks getting together hoodwinking dumb ass Americans. Personally, I think all these so called conspiracies aren't really so important (with the exception of the lives lost) except that bringing the truth to light needs to be a way to spur a new direction. One that is fundamentally different than the one we've been living for thousands of years. We all need to grow the hell up.

  • Marc

    Great summary! Superb for people new to the whole thing

    @Cerebralcaustic Read the f…ing article!

    The most obvious thing for me is, that they didn't put the mayor in his bunker in that building on that day. What is the bunker for if not for an emergency state like on 9/11. Also that tons of SEC files regarding Enron and Worldcom were conveniently destroyed with the building should raise some questions…

    This is the smoking gun and the one we need to focus on in a new investigation!

    • C'mon Son

      Dude im with you on this but they wouldn't put the mayor in a safety bunker on ground zero of the incident… thats just not valid

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    For all those who doubt…who dissemble…who explain away hundreds of 'coincidences' that occurred in just a span of hours…who accept without proof a federal story so full of holes that swiss cheese looks on in envy…who questions people for daring to question in the first place…I have only this to say:

    “Pull it.”

    Thank you…thank you very much.

    • strictly innominate

      Lord are you ever an arrogant prick. Does that community theater routine get you laid? I suppose not, which might explain why you spend your free time glomming on to hopeless conspiracy theories.

      • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

        Sorry kiddo…this one breaks down to two camps…unbelievable suckers and people who are, one way or another, sure that something isn't quite right with this picture.

        You can check in with the “One born every minute” brigade. They may have a bridge you'd like to purchase.

        • Tuna Ghost

          Yeah, there's no middle ground, if you're not with us then you're against us–hey wait where have I heard that before

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            It really is that easy. Never mind any one particular item…look across the entire panorama of unanswered questions. Either you feel that questions remain to be answered and our leadership and media are uninterested…or you believe that all questions have been answered satisfactorily and the matter is at a close.

            It doesn't necessarily add up to being “against us”…but either you buy the spin and hype and amazing coincidences…or you don't. I can't say with certainty who, if anyone, would be responsible in the end…since I don't ascribe to any one theory about 'who dunnit'…but I know one thing with absolute certainty…too many sloppy answers and unexplained loose ends demands more investigation…and we're still not getting the answers we deserve.

            If you're content and trusting of the Bush admin (because their extensive record for truthfulness is so compelling) and its explanation of events…good on ya…run with that…hope it works out for ya. As for others including me…no way, not now, not ever.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Framing conspiracy deniers as “trusting the administrations word” is pretty disingenuous, buddy, although I'm sure it makes you feel better to do so. It's not about trusting the Bush administration. I “trust” them to do exactly what in their best interest at all times. It's about having a view of conspiracies and operations of the kind you're claiming took place that aligns with the real world. See my longer post for elaboration.

          • DaemonWulf

            yes, because heaven knows in this country, currently, the term “conspiracy theorist” can be directly translated to mean “f-ing nutjob”. The propaganda team has done such a fine job of marginalizing dissenters, anyone who dare speak the possibility that something could be a bit off is just a half-step away from foaming at the mouth and chewing on the rubber walls at the state hospital. This used to be the kind of country where people who questioned the motives of the ruling class were welcomed, and a free exchange of ideas both banal and offensive was a basis for the natural progress of a free democracy. But what the hell do I know, I’m one of those unrealistic nutjobs.

  • Jiggs

    Exploding fuel tanks would not explain temperatures of 2800 degrees F necessary to vaporize solid steel columns, as cited in the article . So, now you know better. The government will stonewall, as usual, until the usual suspects are all dead (see Gulf of Tonkin).

    • Tuna Ghost

      Steel loses a great deal of it's strength at even half the melting temperature, buddy. It wouldn't need to vaporize, and the statements I've heard explaining the fall of tower 7 do not mention any “vaporizing” anyway–only that the center column lost it's integrity, causing the building to fall in on itself. You can see blueprints of the building online, and you can even see the column they are speaking of. Another example of bad science lending credence where it shouldn't, I'm afraid.

      • Marc

        @Tuna Ghost
        The thing you forget is the freefall speed of the collapse! This has even been accepted by NIST. So your “Center column collapses” theory does not work at all, because then the rest of the building would slow the fall down a lot! Only if there are no masses below the falling parts can they accelerate that fast!

        Btw: do you think 1200 Architects and Engineers who risk their reputation are likely to be wrong and a few NIST scientists paid by the alleged govenment tell the truth? Are you really that naive?

        • Lulzworth

          Well, you fail to notice that every theory on this has one thing missing.

          Motive.

          The idea that the government destroyed the Twin Towers has a motive, if you believe the government wanted to use it to start a war.

          But why the hell would they blow up a relatively minor building for no apparent reason and THEN try to cover it up? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to blame it on the terrorists and be done with it? They could even say terrorists snuck in and planted bombs on the support columns, and completely support that theory. But they didn't. Why not?

          Because that theory is fucking stupid, has no reasoning behind it, and doesn't make any sense. That's why. The fact of the matter is, if it had happened, the government would have twisted it to use for their own benefit. They didn't. Therefore, there's no way it happened that way.

          If you went to, say, firebomb someone's house, would you do it without having someone to frame for it first? No. That would be dumb. This is the same idea.

          • Marc

            The motive is pretty clear to me. They managed to destroy all the files and traces of the insider tradings that went on that day (AA shares droping etc.) since the SEC was conveniently located there. Also they destroyed tons of documents on the ENRON and Worldcom cases that were stored there… + one more reason for Mr. Silverstein was the insurance of course. He even admitted that he called the insurance to check if bringing the building down with controlled demolitions to prevent further loss would invalidate his insurance… now you tell me how he could have wired a building to blow up in less than a day? This was planed long before!

            Btw. the only thing this author and we the “truthers” want is an independant investigation into this pointing out that the NIST report makes no sense in a scientific way and has many flaws. Who did it or why they did it will be left to a court to judge.

            Of course there may be some errors in some theories, that is why they are called theories… but there are simply some mistakes in the official report and many questions remain unanswered. We owe it to the people who lost their loved ones that day and in the resulting illegal wars.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Wait, so they destroyed the buildings to hide the evidence of the insider trading that would profit from their plans to destroy the building? Circular logic, friend. Also, do you really think the only copies of these documents were in those buildings? Is that the way you think the world operates?

            Once again: why would the gov't risk a huge operation like this when it can't even hide far more innocent, far smaller conspiracies well at all? Why just just LET the thousands of assholes who WANT to do this succeed? That would be cheaper, less risky, and there would be no evidence. See my longer post for elaboration.

        • Tuna Ghost

          This is another example of bad science: the idea that Tower 7 could only have fallen that fast (for the record, it wasn't “freefall” speed either) if it was a controlled demolition. This is simply not the case. There were some 40-odd floors over an area that had already been badly damaged. Once the floors started pancaking, nothing would have slowed them down. Architects and engineers were well aware of this, which is why firefighters weren't fighting fires (which burned unfought on several floors, damaging the building further).

          I find that conspiracy theorists take “expert's” testimony and take the pieces they like and ignore the rest, so unless you've got some sources for your 1200 engineers comment I'll assume you're just another tool.

  • wfzlsster

    Thanks for getting this out again, while I have seen the info many times most people have not. I never believed the governments version of 9/11 but seeing the demolition of Building 7 many months after the fact left no doubt whatsoever that we had been conned.

  • NEO2012

    We should enjoy these blogs as much as we can to express free speech. Obama, his administration & the “powers” that be are trying to limit what can be said on the internet. GEE, I wonder why they would do that? It appears that the idiots G.H.W. bush and his ideologist) never thought of having a forum such as the web to get the truth out. A Revolution is building and it will be nothing like before! WE THE PEOPLE!!!!

  • theophany

    Fugget about it ! Never forget !

  • Tuna Ghost

    It should be noted that the NIST report writers mentioned that locations and strengths were not “set in stone”–the report was rushed and they knew they didn't have every answer. They used words in the report like “possibly”, “likely” and “very likely”, but conspiracy theorists ignore these qualifiers and simply take for granted that someone is trying to deceive them. One is right to say the NIST isn't giving them the whole story. It wasn't supposed to.

    The fact is, there is very strong evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to structural damage. A lucid account can be found here

    http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

    I don't like the tone they use, but they provide far more evidence than any conspiracy theorist I've run across. Of course, we can claim that either the conspiracy theorists or the conspiracy deniers are deluded or misrepresenting evidence or just making it all up, so let's get to a very valid reason why it is very unlikely the gov't had a hand in knocking down the towers.

    SImply put–an operation on that scale would involve far too many people. You can't trust that many people to keep their mouths shut about something like this, and you can' t just kill that many people (their disappearance would be far too incriminating). Further, our government simply isn't capable of pulling off a stunt like this and not getting caught. Look at other, far smaller operations they tried to keep quiet and failed miserably at, things like the Iran/contra shit, CIA trained death squads in Central America, Saddam Hussien, the weapons of mass destruction and many, many more. People talk, evidence gets around, and something this big would not stay quiet very long.

    Finally and most convincingly in my mind, why would they bother to go through the extreme risk of quietly pulling off something of this scale when, if they really wanted it to happen, they could have just allowed any of the thousands of nutbags who WANT to do this to succeed? It would be cheaper, easier, and most importantly there would be no evidence linking back to them. They wouldn't have to actually DO anything, they could just sit back and allow things to play out exactly how they want them to. Isn't that a far, far more likely scenario?

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      You presume that all unanswered questions take the shape of “our own goverment did it!”…which is presuming a lot. Your last paragraph outlines what I suspect is most likely…a series of unexplained coincidences to make it easier for an outside agency to pull off the event itself…not a purely internal plot…but I'm afraid that qualifies you as a sucker for joining the crowd of denier/buyers when you should be asking for an explanation for our leadership's actions.

      Second, I don't quantify having questions as 'conspiracy theories'…since a theory posits an explanation, and I don't have a firm fixed one…I just have stacks of questions, many which never received coverage in any formal inquiry. The obvious reason being that some questions would have answers that raised more questions…so looking stupid for not asking them becomes a safer route than asking them and providing a false answer.

      It is entirely possible that whatever persons organized the events, both the obvious and less obvious ones, on 9/11…are members of an organization or country whose actions would completely alter American perceptions of conventional politics in a way so disruptive to 'business as usual' that any mention of potentially harmful information is smothered or ignored to prevent PR harm to entrenched interests.

      And last…you're right…it is impossible to keep it quiet…which is why pilots, engineers, architects, firefighters and cops who were there, demolition experts and damned near everyone with an education in the necessary sciences are represented in the 'truther' category. They can't keep them silent…the media archives are chock full of loose tidbits of coverage that were aired live at the time and couldn't be completely destroyed, document leaks, whistleblowers…and last but not least, people keep pointing out incongruent statements, claims, timelines and more…

      …and the only thing keeping a lid on it is the willingness of suckers to presume that the pat answers are “likely” accurate or at least “mostly” truthful. You can find a hundred different descriptions by 'theorists' about why/who Kennedy was assassinated. Why? Because the investigation done at the time was a sham that was buried away and kept from the public. A clear, truthful, extensive investigation would have prevented most of the festering mania surrounding the event…and in the 9/11 Commission Report we got a second load of whitewash and unanswered, under investigated, unapologetically incompetent half truths.

      You don't have to fool all of the people. Just enough to counterbalance the suspicious and prevent any real action. People hunger to believe in a simple truth that doesn't horribly complicate their lives…and that makes the momentum for comforting answers easier than you might imagine. If you think thats implausible…stop and remember that if you move outside the narrow confine of disinfo readers, the vast majority of people still don't believe or know anything relevant about the CIA's actions in Latin America or anywhere else. They think its all exaggerated rumors spread by disgruntled lefties whose thoughts on the subject can't be trusted…sounds hauntingly familiar if you ask me.

      • Tuna Ghost

        “You presume that all unanswered questions take the shape of “our own goverment did it!”…which is presuming a lot.”

        You are correct, my apologies. That seems to be the majority consensus here; forgive me for lumping you into that category.

        “Second, I don't quantify having questions as 'conspiracy theories'…since a theory posits an explanation, and I don't have a firm fixed one…I just have stacks of questions, many which never received coverage in any formal inquiry.”

        Fair enough, although one must admit that the questions are often placed in a certain order so as to point in a certain direction? Perhaps not by you, but by several people in this thread? It's a useful tactic to suggest something without actually having to say anything or provide credible sources, which is annoying as fuck.

        “And last…you're right…it is impossible to keep it quiet…which is why pilots, engineers, architects, firefighters and cops who were there, demolition experts and damned near everyone with an education in the necessary sciences are represented in the 'truther' category.”

        My statement in this regard refers to the large number of people who would have had to have been directly involved in any illicict activity to bring the towers down, not “experts” with opinions only. There would have been too many people and too much evidence for any organization in the gov't to take the risk.

        The comparison to the CIA's involvement in Central America in the eighties is very apt, for a number of reasons–it was on a much, much smaller scale and fewer people than any conspiracy to bring down the towers would have needed (presuming it was enacted by a government organization), and it was on foreign soil, but it was still discovered. Effing Chomsky was talking about it a scant couple years later when the US was still denying involvment. The point is, people knew–but nobody cared. People knew about Watergate, about the Iran/Contra shit–but nobody gave a shit. 9/11 is way too big to count on there being documented evidence that the US was involved somehow but people no longer caring. It's not about “fooling” anyone–documented evidence is documented evidence, and it only takes one person to file charges and present evidence.

        The fact is, there is a large body of evidence suggesting the towers fell because two planes crashed into them. The opinons of people who weren't there, who weren't invovled in the investigation, who have little information but a lot of opinions means jack shit. We have questions, yes. My questions center around why the fuck nobody seems to care that the Bush administration took advantage of a national tragedy to further their own goals at the risk of american lives. I don't expect to get any answers.

        • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

          I have noticed that people tend to attach final blame to whomever their pet peeve is directed at (ie: Jews, Masons, New World Order/globalists, angry vacuum cleaner salesmen, etc etc ad infinitum). I try to keep an open mind. Perfect coincidences and simple absolutes are much rarer in real life than in the imagination.

          If I suspect one thing more than another…its as I mentioned above…like you…a suspicion that the parties responsible may not have been investigated as thoroughly as possible because it would deeply rock the boat of our society if we knew too many details and it goes without saying that the event was then used to excuse almost any psychotic excess by the previous administration…and now the current one as well.

          The kicker for me has always been the live ground zero footage…with people announcing that WTC7 has a bomb in it and everyone should clear the area…Larry Silverstein (the amazingly well insured for terrorism attacks…mere months beforehand) telling the personnel around him to 'pull it'…repeated small explosions in staccato pops that are followed by the building dropping in a clean fall in a fashion more orderly than any method but demolition can provide. These things aren't second hand testimony…they were live on camera as it unfolded.

          The Mossad/IDF veterans arrested the day of the attacks, the un-researched Pakistani who shipped money to the alleged suicide-pilots (when asked why the information regarding the funding wasn't in the 9/11 Report…the answer by commissioners was “It wasn't relevant.”, the missing/found/missing black boxes, or the decision to run air drills for fighter squadrons to prepare for aircraft hijackings…which placed them too far away to intervene in a timely fashion, or Bush's apparent total calm and continued story reading after being informed of the attacks, or the plane crash that made news for a flicker then vanished from the records and was re-announced as a small local fire…while the Pentagon was hit and damaged by a cylindrical object caught shooting by on overpass cameras. And on and on and on…It isn't just building strength and fire resistance that needs answers…its a few thousand minor details that need greater clarification. So many that I can't even begin to form a cohesive theory. Too many players, too many details, too many unanswered questions…but if they were answered,…we might be able to close some of the gaps…and I'm fairly sure any number of people do not want that.

          We can explain it all away after the fact…or we can demand better answers…I fall into the wanting answers crowd…and what dooms us to frustration is the belief that justice and answers 'can't' happen. That can change, if we raise our voices as one, for just one thing that really matters. Evidently, despite what people say, it just didn't matter enough. That bothers me a lot more than I like to admit.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I can understand wanting more answers, but you must realize: a great deal of the things you wrote weren't questions, they were assertations that have been refuted. The Pentagon was hit by a plane. There is a great deal of evidence for that. WTC 7 didn't fall in a way that only a controlled demolition can provide. These are things people repeat over and over that simply aren't true. Check out the site I linked to, they provide very lucid, very detailed refutations.

            Yes, there are several questions about what happened. The government, however, does not have any obligation, legal or otherwise, to tell you how it all happened. It is a mistake to think that they do. For one thing, if someone succeeds in a sneak attack it is not very wise to tell everyone in the world how they slipped past your defenses, or to alert everyone to how very easy it is to commit a terrorist attack on US soil. Are they using “national security” too broadly? Are they using it as an excuse to keep other information from us? Very possibly. But we'll never know what, or how much. All there is, is speculation. Which is what a great deal of the theories and mutterings concerning 9/11–speculations.

  • Giocatore198

    I watched as they pulled building no 7 in a controlled demolition. Afterwards they never aired it again and never made reference to again as a controlled demolition as a “preventative measure”. How convenient that all the evidence of a government conspiracy hidden in the offices of the CIA, DOD just evaporated in a cloud of dust.

  • bigncornfed

    Hell, I still don't know who shot J.R.! But It don't take no rocket scientist to figure out what happened here: mama oil and daddy defense fell in love see…then defense stuck his finger in oil's belly button and then the stork (bin laden and the c.i.a.) brought the twins, fear and greed (you can call 'em bush and cheney). then we went to war for ten years in a magical land that has maybe a dozen working elevators in the whole kingdom. and another war too! I cannot remember where or why with that one. Anyhoo, We finally got rid of that stupid $10,000,000,000,000.00 we couldn't find any use for…and they all lived happily Never after.
    Damn, no matter how many times I tell that one to my children, it never gets old.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Guess what, three buildings didn’t fall into their own footprints, buddy. Otherwise surrounding buildings wouldn’t have been damaged so heavily. That is another statement commonly made that isn’t true but nevertheless believed by people dying to have a conspiracy to make their lives more interesting.

    I find it amusing when people with no knowledge of engineering or architecture or physics say things like “if you have any knowledge of physics”. Self-awareness, kids. Get some.

  • DaemonWulf

    yes, because heaven knows in this country, currently, the term “conspiracy theorist” can be directly translated to mean “f-ing nutjob”. The propaganda team has done such a fine job of marginalizing dissenters, anyone who dare speak the possibility that something could be a bit off is just a half-step away from foaming at the mouth and chewing on the rubber walls at the state hospital. This used to be the kind of country where people who questioned the motives of the ruling class were welcomed, and a free exchange of ideas both banal and offensive was a basis for the natural progress of a free democracy. But what the hell do I know, I’m one of those unrealistic nutjobs.

  • DaemonWulf

    yes, because heaven knows in this country, currently, the term “conspiracy theorist” can be directly translated to mean “f-ing nutjob”. The propaganda team has done such a fine job of marginalizing dissenters, anyone who dare speak the possibility that something could be a bit off is just a half-step away from foaming at the mouth and chewing on the rubber walls at the state hospital. This used to be the kind of country where people who questioned the motives of the ruling class were welcomed, and a free exchange of ideas both banal and offensive was a basis for the natural progress of a free democracy. But what the hell do I know, I’m one of those unrealistic nutjobs.

  • verbatim

    ‘It fell in silence..’
    So much for controlled demolition then.

  • verbatim

    ‘It fell in silence..’
    So much for controlled demolition then.

21
More in 9/11, 911 Truth, Free Fall, Nathan Janes, NIST, Pupaganda
The Washington Post’s Damning ‘Top Secret America’ Report

Well here it is, "Top Secret America," the Washington Post's much-hyped critique of an out-of-control public and private intelligence disaster happening in the United States. Here's the intro, but there's...

Close