Skip to content

Firefighters and the “9/11 Truth Movement” – Conclusion

44 comments

Note: This is the conclusion of a 5-part commentary that has run each morning this week.
Begin reading the series with Part One HERE.  Read Part Two HERE.
Read Part Three HERE.  Read Part Four HERE.

*  *  *  *

Betraying Our Trust

Firefightersfor911truth.org’s call to action is wrapped in phony patriotic blather and emotional rhetoric replete with a revelation referring to Mr. Lawyer’s recent “awakening.”  I, for one, would prefer that he simply stayed asleep. When I read such sentences as “Now I am asking FOR YOUR HELP TO SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND OUR COUNTRY!”, I begin to wonder about the motivation of such people, ten years after 9/11. 

At the very least it is evidence of a wildly inflated ego (SAVE OUR COUNTRY!) and it also expresses a profound and cynical lack of faith in democracy and our ethical systems. It is especially pernicious in that it exhorts firefighters to expend our hard earned public trust to further propaganda that is poisonous and hurtful.

It is also emblematic of our 21st century fame-obsessed culture where everyone lusts for their moment in the spotlight. (Until you have a website with a YouTube video where you speak at a press conference you haven’t really made it.) In addition, the ubiquity of the World Wide Web and the ease with which a site can be constructed now allows those with nothing substantive to say to do so loudly and with fervor. Christopher Hitchens refers to this vacuous dialogue as the “exhaust fumes of modern society.”

The most damning aspect of what Lawyer and his conspiracist-truther-cronies are doing involves the children of 9/11. Adults like you and me, and yes, eventually the spouses and adult relations of those who died can ignore or tune out the poison and filth but children cannot. In a culture exemplified by the non-stop and all but inescapable barrage of (dis)information, these young children, thanks to 9/11 conspiracists are doomed to deal on a daily basis with the anxiety and fear posed by the lies they hear about the deaths of their parents and close relations. (Your parents were murdered and their killers are all around you:  nice message for a ten-year-old.)

Yes, we should be outraged all right, but not at the supposed secret and nefarious forces controlling our country. Our anger should be directed instead at those who, in their destructive quest for self-worth and frenzied self gratification, will stop at nothing including the intentional infliction of pain on families who deserve the right to heal in peace. That’s a conspiracy worth fighting.

……………… Eric Lamar

Sources:
Wiki
NYT
9/11 Commission Report
Scientific American

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Posted by on July 29, 2011 • Filed under: commentary, Eric Lamar • Tagged:
  • http://profiles.google.com/captschmoe Joseph Schmoe

    The absurdity of the “thruthers” argument is beyond logic or belief. I have met a few of them over the years, they have been an exercises in futility. The truthers inability to comprehend scientific principles,  demolition practices and the fact that the government simply isn’t competent enough to pull something like that off is compounded by their willingness to believe something created on the web.

    I am done trying to reason with these idiots, once I determine someone is a “truther”, I write them off, their credibility is zero. I don’t care if their feelings are hurt, they can blame it on my Teutonic- Irish obstinance and lack of manners. THAT is a conspiracy they should believe in! 

  • http://profiles.google.com/captschmoe Joseph Schmoe

    Oh, and by the way, great post! 

  • Dave Statter

    Eric,

    Superb.

    I have been hounded by these conspiracy types who have taken various phrases of what I reported from my live reports in the minutes after the attack at the Pentagon to further their own idiotic agenda. My friend Mike Walter, a reporter who witnessed the Pentagon crash has had it much worse.

    If it wasn’t such an important and tragic event the absurdity of what they want you to believe would be comical. Some are convinced that the live camera video I talked over while standing on Washington Boulevard among tiny metal pieces from the plane was actually video from a sound stage or other set where this was all staged. Not that they have a bit of evidence to back up their BS. And they want us to take them seriously?

    Great job Eric,

    Statter

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Excellent series.

    This is something everyone approached by a truther should read before they decide to take any action. 

    This gullibility to conspiracy theories appears to be a byproduct of not teaching logic and the scientific method well in school.

  • Eric

    Thanks, Dave.

    I note that the “truthers” have also failed to even attempt to explain how such an immense conspiracy is either controlled or administered.  After all, the conspirators don’t just disappear after the event.  They have continuing wants and needs and their information concerning participation in such an epic event would be worth a lot of money.  The notion that someone wouldn’t attempt to leverage their participation for personal gain is beyond absurd.

    Where did all of these people go?  What are they doing these days?  Will there be a ten-year anniversary celebration?

    Participation in such an event would amount to the seminal event in their lives.  The compulsion to talk about and to relive it, especially in our culture would be immense.  (Think of young men and women blogging and writing about the Gulf Wars or others writing about their participation in clandestine operations or even Abu Ghraib.)  In the latter case, out of a very small unit, more than one soldier realized the (at least) moral ambiguity of their treatment of prisoners and soon enough “the cat was out of the bag.”)  Are we to believe that the alleged hundreds of participants in such a gigantic enterprise/conspiracy have moved on to selling real estate?

    It’s all absurd but also very hurtful to others.

    Eric

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    Mr Eric,
    Would a meaningful, factual, non prejudiced science inspired debate be possible with you?

    Thank you.

    http://Www.ae911Truth.org

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    Not true. … 911Truth controlled demolition Movement explained the plausibility and plausible administration and logistics of 911 false flag inside operation.
    A couple lines:
    1. highest secrecy. Nobody knew what actually they are doing.
    2. Compartmentalization. Nobody knew what else, who else is doing what.
    3. High skills. Those affected of course are signed to silence under a capital punishment to begin with.

    So they painted walls with nanothermite, and wired it during complete power downs of buildings.

    This all is very amazing and unbelieavable, however it is a fact that buildings could not have fallen other than as controlled demolition.

    http://Www.911investigate.blogspot.com

  • Eric

    My writing was focused on the motivations of conspiracists rather than the psuedo-science that is trotted out to explain their views.

    By the way, your 9/11 convictions are hardly bolstered by the fact that you also believe that the London Bombings and Oklahoma City were also inside conspiracies.  This fact alone is strong proof of the main points in the article I wrote: you are personally driven by the notion of conspiracies and so you see them everywhere you look.  What a bleak and disappointing worldview. 

    Could it be that your worldview is influenced by your coming of age in a communist-ruled country?

  • Anonymous

    A lot of this is awfully similar to the “facts” trotted out by Sovereign Citizens (like the two who murdered the two cops in West Memphis last year), the Redemptionists, the tax protesters (like Wesley Snipes, the “non-resident, non-alien” who “owes no taxes” on a gross income of $25 million), the Birthers, the Creationists (the world is 6000 years old) and the rest of that ilk.

    Watch out, folks, these morons are among us and they breed.

  • http://FriendFeed.com/PetrBuben PetrBuben

    hello,

    ok, then your article doesnt apply to 911 WTC attacks, because those are PROVEN, SCIENTIFICALLY and IRREFUTABLY to be controlled demolition, therofere inside false flag operation.

    my 911 understanding comes from facts researched and layed out on the internet by US, also some foreign, scientists, experts, patriots ready to stand up for truth, not blinded into obedience by government and its propaganda.

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    http://www.drjudywood.com

    http://www.krunchd.com/911

    would you nonetheless speak to, comment on 911 facts, then?
    911 is 100% proven controlled demolition.

    1. nanothermite found in dust of WTC
    2. free fall speeds .. now how in the hell that would be, right ??
    3. sudden onset, uniform catastrophic fall in its footprints of 3 steel
    skyscrapers on a one single day.
    WTC 7 wasnt even hit by a plane
    4. buildings disappeared, pulverized, evaporated

    4/19/95 Oklahoma and 7/7/5 London bombing attacks are understood to be about
    95% proven, judging from currently available facts. … but that is not yet
    irrefutable, scientific .. .nobody did any hard sampling etc … take a look
    at facts if you want….

    my personal drivings have nothing to do with the fact that 911 attacks are
    proven to be controlled demolition.
    http://www.ae911truth.org
    http://www.krunchd.com/911

    Bleak and disappoiting worldview??
    To me, to be fooled by propaganda, by lies, that is disappointing.

    I certainly must be influenced by growing up in a socialist country, in all
    ways, positive and negative.

    One influence is that i do strongly dislikes lies and propaganda.
    And I can also tell them when i see them.
    But that is a just personal matter.

    have a nice day
    :]
    Petr
    http://www.911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com

  • Albury Smith

    Thanks, Eric; you’ve summed up the 9/11 “truth movement” perfectly. For PetrBuben and other diehard troofers who are defending this nonsense, here’s Erik Lawyer’s “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” petition:
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
    Please feel free to count all of the signatories to it who even claim to be FDNY. Don’t they care what caused the deaths of more than 300 of their close friends, colleagues, and relatives, or aren’t they as astute as you are? Unlike you, many of them were at the WTC on 9/11, and some have even been quote mined by your “researchers” for the use of the word “explosion” to describe the loud sounds they heard inside the burning buildings. We would not need people within a block of the buildings to tell us that demolition charges went off, as experienced firefighters obviously realize.

  • Albury Smith

    How about a meaningful, factual, non-prejudiced science inspired debate of this, Petr? Be sure to explain how Gage and your other “researchers” came up with 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the collapse of WTC 7:

    I think
    it’s time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard
    Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they’ve already been
    thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people.
    The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or
    242′, of the collapse of WTC 7′s facade, and determined that it took 5.4
    seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” claim that the entire
    610′ collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368′ fall in just over 1
    second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second
    for the entire collapse when NIST couldn’t because buildings in the foreground
    blocked the view of video cameras?
    How can he claim that the towers nearly
    free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously
    falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while
    at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down
    to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground.
    Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds
    respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have
    taken:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4yet
    he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed
    that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no
    reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the
    fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC
    eyewitnesses:
    http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fireshttp://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damagehttp://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtcHow
    could his claim that 400,000 yards of
    concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than
    100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how
    to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without
    leveling NYC?
    Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten
    metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn’t leave even one
    explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were
    planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from
    elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th
    floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight
    and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns.
    Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns
    collapsed first, so he’s not even making sense, especially considering the fact
    that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower’s
    main collapse was over.
    We should investigate the nonsense coming from
    Richard Gage, as well as his “engineers.”
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

  • FYI

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/dump-%E2%80%98irrelevant%E2%80%99-pentagon-research-on-911-cit-opponents/

    Señor El Once says:

    April 21, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Dear Mr. LomBeeeer,

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

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

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

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

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

  • Its Sonar

    Yeah, nothing to worry about, you just keep telling yourself that, while the sane majority laugh at you.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/bush-and-clinton-counter-terrorism-tzar.html

  • Albury Smith

    Claiming to be interested in the truth and then banning someone for posting it is despicable as well as asinine, but I’m not the topic here, nor is your dog-and-pony show that won’t won’t permit honest discussion. The 9/11 “truth movement” is a laughingstock because of people like you and Craig. 

  • Halfabee

    Its surprising to think that the fact that the official version of events is nothing but a fanciful lie, wouldnt be enough motivation for anyone, but with all the evidence that shows it to be so, so easily available, youd have to ask what motivates the shills like Albury Smith.

    http://www.911-see-the-evidence.com/

    How does NIST explain the rivers of molten metal?
    They deny it.

    http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/05/arguments-regarding-collapse-of-world.html

  • Albury Smith

    You wouldn’t be in the 9/11 “truth movement” if you weren’t very ill-informed, but NIST has never denied the existence of molten metal in the debris, nor even the existence of molten steel, although they consider the latter to be improbable. See #13 here:
     http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
    They have denied that any steel melted to cause a collapse, but please feel free to list all of the explosives or incendiaries that are capable of producing rivers of molten metal months after being detonated or ignited. The debris fires, fueled by normal building contents, were more than sufficient to melt lead and aluminum, and both were in abundance in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises.

  • Davo

    Comment removed by administrator. This is not a flame room for adolescents.

  • Albury Smith

    On sites run by your 9/11 “truth movement,” no one’s given the opportunity for honest discussion, “Davo,” so how would you know how I fared?

  • Midget
  • Midget
  • video evidence explosives

    Albury Smith 9 11 Gormless LYING Shill
    “NIST has never denied the existence of molten metal in the debris, nor even the existence of molten steel”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

  • Albury Smith
  • Albury Smith

    Dr. Gross asked the truther nut for evidence of molten STEEL. The NIST position on it is that it’s conceivable that steel melted in the debris fires after the collapses, but no steel melted to cause a collapse:
    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm (item #13)

  • Asif

    HA! debate NIST? No-one turns up! http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/381-strongest-911-myth-arguments-crumble-as-truth-prevails.html

    You’re the one pretending to be an expert on all things 9 11, someone who has for years spent an inordinate amount of time trolling websites ad nauseum, with your very special brand of argument.

    You can’t know what anyones qualifications are, or if they were or not eyewitnesses to anything, it’s simply just more of your wish-wash. There are though, many eyewitnesses to many explosions, but then you already know that. Regardless, it doesn’t necessarily take a structural engineer, or an eyewitness to anything, to recognise that if something shows all the characteristics of an explosion, and none of a collapse, then common sense says its an explosion.

    http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/tower-explosions.htm

    You just need to not be an utter changeling to come to the obvious conclusion.

    There is no way a “debris” fire could burn in an oxygen starved environment fire and keep any metal, ( you must prove it was all lead if you simply want to make that assertion ) molten for months, http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm, especially, since fires need fuel, and since anything that could have possibly burned, that youd normally expect to find in an office, was turned to dust in mid air.

    It’s amusing to see you ask people to explain the molten metal, considering the official scenario can not account for it, seriously, “debris” fires? You truly are an impotent joke, the magnitude of which, is displayed everywhere.

    quote: “Bots don’t tire of repeating themselves. They don’t tire of ignoring
    answers. They don’t tire of being wrong repeatedly. They don’t tire of
    not understanding. They are programmed to be wrong and spread their lies
    without feeling.

    Mr. Albury, if he’s not a bot, is encouraged once again to establish his
    own blog to show-case his database entries and alleviate him from
    having to copy-and-paste them everywhere. Blogs are easy to create and
    afford limitless opportunity to defend the OGCT and caste doubt on all
    other theories. Hours of good clean fun.”

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/is-science-being-used-to-reveal-the-truth-about-911-or-help-conceal-it/

    If you think you’re winning, then congratulations, you’ve managed to fool one person.

  • Nyucknyuck

    lol

    you do know the official version of events is, by definition, is a conspiracy theory, don’t you?

    lol

    no you dont.

    but then, school werent your strong point, was it, jimbob.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Nyucknyuck,

    Yes, it was a conspiracy. Conspiracies do happen. 

    Conspiracies that are supported only by a lack of understanding of coincidences are not conspiracy theories worth paying attention to. I have written about this elsewhere, so you are not providing any new information. 

    The conspiracy theories being pushed by the truthers make no sense, unless you ignore logic and science.

    .

  • Albury Smith

    Since you’re the one claiming that the molten metal in the WTC debris fires was steel, it’s up to you to prove it, and then to explain what that has to do with explosives and controlled demolition.
    I’m glad to hear that Dr. Sunder and other sane, rational, and competent people had better things to do than waste their time listening to Box Boy’s absurd nonsense.

  • Nyucknyuck

    Yeah, its a coincidence, that buildings explode http://physics911.net/ after being hit by an aeroplane, and its a coincidence, that building 7, after not being hit by an aeroplane, self destructed out of sympathy for the other two, and fell through the path of most resistance, for a time, at freefall speed, which means all support over the entire building, for several floors, was totally removed instantaneously, then its a coincidence that building 7 was totally forgotten about in the 911 commission report.

    its a coincidence that a giant hole appearred due to explosions before the towers collapsed.
    http://www.911-see-the-evidence.com/images/page39.jpg

    lol. logic and science indeed. you can ignore all that, or you can examine the evidence.
    http://www.911-see-the-evidence.com/
    up to you.

    “This gullibility to coincidence theories appears to be a byproduct of not
    teaching logic and the scientific method well in school. ”

    Schools in America anyway.  but its actually no coincidence there. Americans are being deliberately “dumbed down”, and Im afraid, all you are doing here is confirming that. Youre probably not a bad person, but unless you actively seek to educate yourself, by being open to all the evidence around you, instead of blindly following the likes of proven government shills like Albury Smith, then you deserve no sympathy.

    All those who Albury derides as “your twoofer movement”, who are simply asking questions about holes in the official coincidence theory, and presenting facts, only to have their questions ignored, are doing, is seeking answers to unanswered questions. seeking truth.

    http://rememberbuilding7.org/

    seeking truth. Albury would have you believe thats a bad thing. but hes just scared.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Nyucknyuck,

    Yeah, its a coincidence, that buildings explode

    The building collapsed. It did not explode, implode, or evaporate.

    its a coincidence, that building 7, after not being hit by an aeroplane, self destructed out of sympathy for the other two

    Building 7 was hit by debris, burned, and collapsed. It did not self-destruct.

    All of these what ifs have been debunked repeatedly, but you continue to raise the same invalid points, just as the anti-vaccinationists do. I see no reason not to put you in the same category as the anti-vaccine paranoiacs.

    .

  • Albury Smith

    Your questions have not been ignored. Stop ignoring the answers.

  • Asif

    Its not up to anyone but the government, ( and proven shills like you ) to prove anything, the only claims being made, other than pointing out that you are an obvious shill, with no life, and that what you are claiming, cant be right, and suggesting that the scenario of controlled demolition fits better with the facts, than your claim that 3 steel framed buildings all falling down through the path of most resistence at near freefall speeds..  from.. what? a bit of fire and …ummm   shock? 3 on the same day, after never having ever happenned before.. 

    but youve been shown repeatedly, all over the web, why you cant be right, yet you still persist with your lunacy. so it doesnt matter what anyone posts here, now, youll continue to ignore it, and deny the logic, reason, and scientific principles staring you in the face, because youre nothing but a gormless shill. and thats what you people do.

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/

    Youre the one making the claim that the buildings collapsed, so explain the molten metal. Since you cant deny there was molten metal, its up to you to explain it. As its impossible for any sort of debris fire to explain it, it simply doesnt fit your fairy tale, nor does this.

    http://www.unfilteredhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/wtc-dust.jpg

    thats a picture of a building falling down according to you is it? lol – and you accuse others of being out of touch with reality. it doesnt get any simpler than that. and the best you can do is call people “box boy”. what a loser.

    will you turn up to any event to debate and argue your point?
    http://torontohearings.org/

    no, because youre a shill and a loser.

    the truth seekers job is done, by simply proving your theory can not be correct, you know, pointing out the obvious flaws in your theory, showing with evidence, logic, common sense, scientific principles, why what you say is absurd nonesense. Its your job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are right. and you cant, regardless of how many times you call richard gage names, it doesnt change that fact.

    Also doesnt change the fact that the majority of the world doubts the official version of events, and your pack of goyoure unwilling and unable to see your claims tested in a forum where
    they can be proven to be right, because you fear the truth.rmless, faceless, pathetic shills and trolls have failed spectacularly.

  • Asif

    *Also doesnt change the fact that the majority of the world doubts the
    official version of events, and your pack of gormless, faceless, pathetic
    shills and trolls have failed spectacularly. youre unwilling and
    unable to see your claims tested in a forum where
    they can be proven
    to be right, because you fear the truth.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    I don’t know if the majority of the world cares about this, but the majority of the world is only an indication of popularity, not an indication of accuracy.

    What matters is what the people trained to investigate collapses say. They say that the planes caused the collapses. 

    .

  • Asif

    I hit like, because youve stated exactly the opposite to what your experts stated, as evidenced by the fact no plane hit building 7 – lol – keep going, please, if anyone can expose your stupidity, its you. The whole world agrees.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Debris from one plane and from one building did hit building 7. 

    That is according to the experts. 

    ‘

  • Doc

    Oh STFU! – that debris and small fires didnt make the building fall at freefall speed through the path of most resistance idiot.

    Youre a fool, and thats a professional diagnosis.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    You are a professional fool? That would explain the acceptance on this truther foolishness.

    .

  • Albury Smith

    Only the 9/11 “truth movement” claims that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, “Doc”:

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

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

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

    How would its collapse have looked if the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A had occurred?

  • Guest

    If it wasnt so much of a problem for the official conspiracy theory, more than 14% of New Yorkers would even know a third building came down that day. You look so stupid holding to your lies in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=missile+pentagon

  • Albury Smith

    If so few know about the collapse of WTC 7, what was the motive for this imaginary controlled demolition that didn’t kill anyone? Did we need more destruction at 5:21 PM to get unanimous congressional approval to go after al Qaeda?

  • Guest

    Comments are closed on this posting.

  • J Grisham

    NIST investigations re Building 7 only take into consideration up to the point of initiation of the collapse. It fails to address the period of freefall.  Freefall can logically be explained, only by controlled demolition, or the fact that all the support just decided to move out of the way by itself.

    If you have an official account, that takes freefall into consideration, please post a link. To date, thare has been no explanation how the building could meet NO resistance from the floors below.

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    J Grisham,

    No. You only possible explanation is not only not the only possible explanation, but not even the most likely explanation. 

    The initiation of the collapse explains the collapse. There is no reason to believe that the building met no resistance, but the weight of the building would provide more than enough inertia to collapse the lower floors as if there were no resistance.

    .