87 votes























Well, then take a look at this:











Now see this:



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options


Unfortunately for the perps,

God knows.
No escape from God.
Sorry 9/11 perps.

And there's more, considering



~ John Muir

That's Correct






Another point that people don't understand...


That's a Key Point








40-Story Chechnya Skyscraper Roars into Flames on Every Floor

They finally put the fire out just this morning. Yet, it still did not collapse:


So what more evidence do we need?

July 26, 2013: I decided to use this Chechnya article in my article above instead of this:


That's because key photos have somehow disappeared recently from the Chinese building article and the video in this Chechnya article is very convincing.


nothing...so go do something about

the injustice.

Why wasn't steel architectural science not rewritten post 9/11?

Architects and engineers faced three devastating failures that day. You'd have thought they would have stopped all steel towers, world-wide, and figured out what they had learned and observed, and then build better thereafter. You also would have expected that they would have as much access to the aftermath/crime-scene as they would have needed to construct better towers in the future.

Why didn't that happen? Chechnya shows us yet another example confirming that there was nothing wrong with the construction of those three towers on 9/11. What was wrong was the hubris of the official story-tellers who thought they could outwit folks that constructed these towers to withstand this bad and worse.



how does the construction of a 40 story building in Chechnya "confirm that there was nothing wrong with the construction of those thee towers on 9/11" other than the fact that they used some kind of construction that included some kind of steel?

Not trying to be a dick, but it seems like quite a leap.


That was bait. Thanks for asking

Glaringly absent in the aftermath of that day was any real shift within the architect and engineer community on doing much different than what they knew science supported then and now.

To me, it's a tacit admission from those lacking the fortitude; that what was constructed properly back then, and impacted less than worse-case-scenario, twice, did not fail and fall because they hadn't applied sciences properly back then, nor since. There had to be another explanation; it's just that fewer are willing to follow truth wherever it leads than the majority so far.

The Chechnya tower, being so close in height to Building 7, burning far worse than it, and NOT falling; likely isn't because of improvements in construction practices post 9/11; but if that still seems like a leap to you, well, then call me a jumper!


Did you see my reply below?

(1) In the aftermath of that day there *were* discussions and building code changes directly because of 9/11, addressing, among other things, the potential for collapse due to burnout. One starting point is the International Code Council http://www.iccsafe.org/ (search for "WTC").

(2) You say "burning far worse than it" but even the infowars article quotes the line about the Chechnya tower burning a lot of exterior plastic trim but leaving the interior untouched. How is that "far worse"?

"Thermal expandsion" was not taught nor believed among A&E

Thermal expansion" was made for the press, not scientists who would have had to radically change foundational truth-as-we-know-it in many different fields of science to go along with the official conspiracy.

Building 7 had what appears to be regional, and not universal fire damage. In Chechnya, "the interior", is likely the steel core that frames from within what was much like that of all past steel structures.

Do you really believe that much fire came from "burning a lot of exterior plastic trim"?


I was just pointing out that you were wrong

about engineers not changing building codes in response to 9/11. Search for "collapse" in this document:
or for "burnout" and "collapse" in the site search for more.

BTW where did you get the idea that "thermal expansion" isn't taught or believed by architects and engineers?? What do you think that means, that would be a change to foundational truths? Thermal expansion is not a new idea in the slightest. Engineers and architects most certainly do take thermal expansion into account in many ways. At the very least you can see that it's not just "for the press" in since it's part of the discussion of the post-9/11 building code changes.

A more believable spin on this would be that the official explanation was carried over into the building code changes because they were pressured to support the official explanation. Saying that there were no changes to building codes in response to the official explanation doesn't seem like a good strategy since (a) anyone with a functioning bs filter will want to check up on it, and (b) when they check up on it less than a minute of googling will turn up many links showing that in fact changes were made in response to 9/11 and the official explanation.


I'm going by what the infowars article says. It says the interior of the building was "untouched." And the surface area burning, according to the article, was 14,000 square meters. That's 150,000 square feet. What do you think 150,000 square feet of burning plastic looks like?

It also says "Although officials expressed concern at one point that the building could collapse, its core structure was not affected by the huge fire." So let's first note that the idea of fire causing that building to collapse didn't seem at all strange to them. More specifically, they were worried that the building might collapse if the fire got to the core structure, but the fire didn't get to the core structure.

Thermal expansion as the cause for a systemic failure

Thermal expansion was never taught before as the possible reason to expect this kind of uniform failure, causing concrete to pulverize outward and three massive footprint drops at near free-fall speed.

If you can show us where and when a total reset and reboot of Architecture 101 happened, then I'll stand corrected. Tweaking the codes just doesn't cut it for me, but maybe believing enough, for some, makes it so.


Total reset?

Where are you getting this idea about "total reset and reboot" being needed? I'm not a structural engineer, but from my reading of the building code discussions and proposals, the response to WTC 7 was continuous with prior ideas about protecting steel-framed buildings from collapse. The changes are about addressing the reasons that the WTC 7 fire couldn't be suppressed, factors that made it worse (the fuel storage in the building), and increasing insulation requirements to add more margin of safety in case of fire. Given that they are taking the official report at face value, what more do you expect?

Maybe you're thinking that in response to 9/11 they should have banned the long-span beams that were used in WTC 7, required new buildings to use concrete cores, etc? If you read the discussions on the iccsafe.org site I think you can see why. The quote below is from a proposed change. It's clear that they're aware that "innovative structural design" using longer spans involves greater risk (and thermal expansion is just one aspect of this that they mention). But sometimes people want to push the envelope, so instead of going with safe but boring, they allow for innovative structural design while mitigating risks.

The purpose of the code change is to include new text such that performance based design of structural steel frames can be proposed on projects. This means that the IBC would allow performance based design for fire resistance similarly to other international codes for example in the UK, Europe and Australia. Also to recognize that the performance of structural members in a real fire can be very different to the fire resistance of single members i.e. a beam, column or slab acting in isolation of the rest of the frame in a standard furnace.

This is important because savings in structural fire protection can be made when structures are robustly designed but also weaknesses in the structural frame which can exist when thermal expansion forces act on a structure during a fire can be identified and designed against. This is particularly important in innovative structural design and iconic buildings which are generally much taller or have longer spans and cannot be adequately tested in standard furnace tests. The methodology however is applicable to any structure

When has melting metal caused uniform sequenced failure?

All three buildings had pulverized concrete dust and debris expanding in all directions, all fell in their footprints. Building 7 didn't blow out the sides until it hit the ground, so it looked more like a planned demolition, but that only makes the comparisons more glaringly obvious. Melting metal doesn't put out any impacting force, so gravity is supposed to be the only uniform force present. Even an exploding fuel storage tank wouldn't have had a uniform effect.

Only planned implosions have fallen like this, so IF these three supposedly aren't planned; that would be where I got the idea that a major revision in architectural science should have been expected, but didn't happen.


wayyyy too many conspiracy kooks

on this site. Just sayin.


Deeply honored by your kook assignment

Even when you try and distance yourself from judging others too severely, just because you don't buy it ALL, doesn't mean you haven't bought enough to doubt your claims of objective discernment!

I wish I could commend you better as an effective opponent, or, "devil's advocate"; because sadly, your devil, or adversarial-side, was more convincing than your disclaimer.



First, kudos for the Patrick Henry quote. That is what we are here for, for liberty, not for supporting each and every person's pet conspiracy ideas.

Second, I never called you a kook as is evident from my post. I said there are too many conspiracy kooks here, which I think is true. I have no idea if you are one of the way too many.

Third, I don't necessarily buy anyone's pet theory. I think a lot of key information which would explain certain facts that give rise to the various theories out there, was probaby withheld from everyone and we are just grasping at straws. There's a lot that bothers me about the official narrative, but there's also a lot of reasons to doubt (and in some cases, discard) some of the conspiracy theories out there.

I have no idea what your pet theory is.


Criminal theories are about getting to the truth to save others

I have a pet as a companion and servant, but criminal theories don't work as pets for me. All mob overthrows were not just about the individual's part(s); but also what they did in CONSPIRACY with others, especially when done in known patterns.

You posted the "kook" notice under my post, so it's only right that I reply. Baseless fears, alone, are the stuff of crazed theorists, BUT, when the truth appears to be self-evident, then what we do with it says more about ourselves than we'd like to admit.


Only a real uneducated, or in your case overeducated,

kook would buy the official lie. Or maybe you're just here to wave your magic BS word wand and we will all stop thinking critically. Note to establishment whores, your magic word wand is broken, it no longer works. Science and truth trump lies every time!



Once again, the same fallacy

Just because I don't agree with everything said in one speculative thread on the internet, doesn't mean I believe everything about the official story.


oops, double post



Actually they did make a lot of changes

It's not hard to find building code changes made very specifically because of 9/11. Google will turn up a lot, but for some (but not all) of the story you can go to http://www.iccsafe.org/ (International Code Council) and enter "WTC" in the search box and find quite a bit about it. You can see the discussion there about collapse due to fire, etc. Of course you can say that they had to have those discussions and make those changes in order to support the official cover story ...

As for the building in Chechnya, even the infowars article includes the line:
“According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched.

If the blaze was due to a large amount of flammable plastic trim on the building's exterior, and the interior remained untouched, doesn't that make it a poor comparison to building seven?

sharkhearted's picture

It is time to take action

We need to organize citizen's grand juries (and yes, this is constitutional) that can indict the cover-up artists at NIST and FEMA and the 9-11 Commission for fraud.

The evidence is there to indict them all.

The big problem is finding a prosecutor who will run with it. Taking on this case is like a big bullseye and puts any prosecutor in the crosshairs.

However, I believe there are still a few good men and women in that field, and, just like Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest who stood up against the NDAA, might DO THE RIGHT THING and let the trials begin.

When it comes to 9-11 there are not enough courtrooms and prosecutors and judges on the planet to handle the caseload. It is only a matter of time when we reach a critical mass.

Ignore the shills on here and when you get a chance please visit my site www.911crimes.org It is very preliminary, but I am hoping to join forces with others across the planet in the 9-11 Truth Movement, to bring justice to this horrific crime....which...if the Shadow Government of the USA never existed...would have never happened in the first place.

Norfolk, VA


Since it's time to put it to rest...

...why don't you.

There's a lot of money to be made in pushing conspiracy theories. The 9/11 conspiracy may be the greatest money maker yet.

sharkhearted's picture

No...the 9-11 cover-up may be the greatest CRIME yet

Do you care about justice, and avenging the 3000 souls lost that day, and the 6000 american troops lost since because of that day?

Or are you going to be part of the coverup?

The battle line has been drawn....

Norfolk, VA


I think...

...you've been watching too many movies. I was in D.C. when the plane hit the Pentagon.

Even if you weren't in NYC or D.C., do you really believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of people who saw those planes hit the buildings, not to mention all the TV reporters and independent experts, were all in on a government conspiracy? Because that's how many it would take to keep such a secret.

Please, it's time to put this stuff to rest.

Yes, put it to rest

You've failed!

