Ben Swann takes on 9/11 this 9/10

[goRPaul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCPcvJ-TkDQ

Update:

Reality Check: More Americans Are “Rethinking” 9/11 (http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/)

Update #2:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

[NewRightLibertarian]

Uh oh! The truth deniers won't like this. They'll probably start slandering Ben Swann for daring to broach this subject

[TaftFan]

I don't see this turning out well regardless of what position he takes.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This will be kewl... A Big One on building 7


send out the date/time on social media avenues

[TheGrinch]

Go Ben!

Regardless of what you think happened on 9/11, we deserve far more satisfying answers than the sham of an investigation we got. It's only served to raise skepticism, for good reason.

Now that that diplomatic answer is out of the way, fuck ya, take down those globalist fuckers.

[Carsten2012b]

I'm not one of those 9/11 truthers really. I admit, I believe in the official story, but, I also believe what Ron Paul when he talks about blowback, making 9/11 an unexpected consequence of America's foreign policy actions. When I mean unexpected, however, I mean the nature, time, and date of the retaliation attack. It was obvious that there was going to be some retaliation, but from who (we pissed off a lot of countries in the past) and when was totally unknown.

[Tod]

I'm not one of those 9/11 truthers really. I admit, I believe in the official story, but, I also believe what Ron Paul when he talks about blowback, making 9/11 an unexpected consequence of America's foreign policy actions. When I mean unexpected, however, I mean the nature, time, and date of the retaliation attack. It was obvious that there was going to be some retaliation, but from who (we pissed off a lot of countries in the past) and when was totally unknown.


To me it doesn't make THAT much of a difference one way or the other because either way, the buildings came down because of what western, and especially the US, governments have done.

This does seem like it could be of questionable value for Ben's career. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with, although I don't know how it could include new material.

[fr33]

Uh oh! The truth deniers won't like this. They'll probably start slandering Ben Swann for daring to broach this subject

Umm you do realize that he might not come to the conclusion that it was an inside job right? If so he'll get labeled a "government shill" like Joe Rogan has been for denying the chem trail theory recently.

[Peace Piper]

I'm not one of those 9/11 truthers really. I admit, I believe in the official story, but, I also believe what Ron Paul when he talks about blowback, making 9/11 an unexpected consequence of America's foreign policy actions. When I mean unexpected, however, I mean the nature, time, and date of the retaliation attack. It was obvious that there was going to be some retaliation, but from who (we pissed off a lot of countries in the past) and when was totally unknown.

Take a close look at World Trade Center 7. Remember this building was never hit by any plane, and the BBC and Fox news said it collapsed 20 minutes before it did. The Government NIST report admits that it fell at free fall speed for 5 seconds. That is impossible, if one is to believe the official report about the fire. Compare this collapse to any video of a casino demolition in Las Vegas. WTC7 is the key to a new investigation. Because the official report is not factual.

http://metabunk.org/files/WTC7TiltBack.gif

http://metabunk.org/files/WTCLeftSide2.gif

BBC Calls WTC7 collapse 20 minutes early,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Jane Standley was back 3 hours later, only to have her audio cut off again when asked about WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqAHhTWEH0

[ProBlue33]

I just want to say we all know Ben Swan to be one that searches for truth, discovers it, and then advocates it.
We all saw that during the 2012 election cycle with Ron Paul. He even reported the BS that took place at the DNC too with there dysfunctional voting.

One of the most condemning video's on the internet is a former employee of CDI, who is an expert, saying WTC7 was controlled demolition.
Same with his equivalent in Europe when he was shown the video he had never seen before of WTC7 falling.

If these two specialized experts in their field say it, it is worth working through any cognitive dissonance we have left in this area to at least investigate, and realize just how Ron Paul was sabotaged, could there be more to 9/11 than we were told.

I personally believed the the OS until 2006, so when Ron Paul came along in 2007, everything he said made perfect sense, but honestly that would not have been possible without the epiphany I had in 2006 about 9/11.

[jbauer]

Ahh the WTC's have been discussed ad nauseum here. I doubt he's going to say anything that hasn't been said before but who knows.

[donnay]

Ahh the WTC's have been discussed ad nauseum here. I doubt he's going to say anything that hasn't been said before but who knows.

Oh no it hasn't been talked about enough! This whole fiasco has gotten our liberties taken, sent us aboard fighting unconstitutional wars and brought a police state on our heads!

You cannot possibly talk enough about it! The truth needs to be sought after no matter what people think! Twelve years have gone by, and the REAL perpetrators and conspirators have never been caught!

[specsaregood]

Umm you do realize that he might not come to the conclusion that it was an inside job right? If so he'll get labeled a "government shill" like Joe Rogan has been for denying the chem trail theory recently.

Indeed, I think it much more likely that the truthers turn on him and proclaim him a shill/gatekeeper after this.

[donnay]

Indeed, I think it much more likely that the truthers turn on him and proclaim him a shill/gatekeeper after this.

To me I am glad Ben is focusing on Building-7. Building-7 IMHO is the smoking gun--to this day many people do not even know a third steel building collapsed on that fateful day.

[specsaregood]

To me I am glad Ben is focusing on Building-7. Building-7 IMHO is the smoking gun--to this day many people do not even know a third steel building collapsed on that fateful day.

So when this airs and he asks questions and talks about it, but does not at the end DEEM it all an inside job. You wont be here bashing him, right? And would discourage others from doing that? Because that's the usual MO for "truthers". And fwiw: I'm neither a "truther" or an "anti-truther". I rather liked the "press for truth" movie as it stayed away from stating conspiracies as "truth" and simply presented facts and asked questions. I predict swan's bit will be similar to that.

[donnay]

So when this airs and he asks questions and talks about it, but does not at the end DEEM it all an inside job. You wont be here bashing him, right? And would discourage others from doing that? Because that's the usual MO for "truthers". And fwiw: I'm neither a "truther" or an "anti-truther". I rather liked the "press for truth" movie as it stayed away from stating conspiracies as "truth" and simply presented facts and asked questions. I predict swan's bit will be similar to that.

Again, bringing up Building-7 is great--there is still plenty of people who do not know a third steel building collapsed on 9/11. I am sure, with the way he has presented stuff in the past, he allows his viewers to think for themselves--but he will provide things to make them think. I like Ben's style, so I will have no issues if he doesn't come out and say that 9/11 was a inside job.

[Thor]

"A Noble Lie" (http://www.anoblelie.com/) - Oklahoma City... A test run for 9/11?

[kahless]

I said when I watched it came down that it looked like a controlled demolition. It just did not seem right to me but I ultimately ended up believing the official version so this should be interesting.

I suppose I have been a bit of a different truther. It was no secret that Bin Laden planned to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Even if you go back to 1996 they closed the airspace over the Olympic stadium because of the threat. Anyone that read a newspapers like the NY Times or had to deal with heightened security at the airports due to the Bin Laden threats had a feeling something was coming, especially that summer. Even Al Gore wrote a scathing preliminary report on the threat to the airlines. (that changed of course in the final report after he received campaign donations from various airlines)

It seemed to me and people I know that the government and broadcast media seemed indifferent to what seemed to be a very real threat which raises allot of questions. The collective amnesia to this after 9/11 is what I found pretty outrageous and the fact that anyone whom questions the official version of events is politically destroyed.

[jbauer]

Still can't get past the fact that everyone believes bush 2 was dumb. But believe that somehow he pulled off the biggest coverup in history.

[donnay]

Still can't get past the fact that everyone believes bush 2 was dumb. But believe that somehow he pulled off the biggest coverup in history.


Bush didn't pull it off. Please do not give him credit for something he is incapable of doing. Bush is quite dumb--look at how he took the information after he was told what was going on in New York. For seven minutes he sat still, instead of getting up and excusing himself as the commander and chief should have--America was allegedly under attack! He was the Barney Fife in the Whitehouse. His speeches, alone, should make anyone know he wasn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Umm you do realize that he might not come to the conclusion that it was an inside job right? If so he'll get labeled a "government shill" like Joe Rogan has been for denying the chem trail theory recently.

Somehow, I doubt he's going to think Building 7 went down due to some office fires based upon his previous reports.

[TheGrinch]

Still can't get past the fact that everyone believes bush 2 was dumb. But believe that somehow he pulled off the biggest coverup in history.

Clearly Bush wasn't the brains behind the operation, that was his dad's PNAC buddies, most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld.



Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, 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"

[NewRightLibertarian]

Clearly Bush wasn't the brains behind the operation, that was his dad's PNAC buddies, most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld.

They know that. They'd just rather keep repeating the same nonsense over again than admit the obvious truth.

[TaftFan]

Still can't get past the fact that everyone believes bush 2 was dumb. But believe that somehow he pulled off the biggest coverup in history.
Bush isn't stupid at all, he is just folksy when speaking.

[Thor]

Bush isn't stupid at all, he is just folksy when speaking.

Folksy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM

[ItsTime]

It is like a third rail when reporters ask questions about 9/11 and talk to people who question the official story. I would hope both Truthers and Skeptics will watch Ben's report with an open mind or I fear what what will happen is half the people will call him a truther and the other half will claim he got "got to" by the government....

[TaftFan]

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

[WM_in_MO]

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you.

[Thor]

Well, it is 20 minutes after the start time, and I cannot find this "live event" or the released video (if not "live streaming" on benswann.com)

I think the video said "tune in at 12 noon EST on Tuesday Sept 10th"

Anyone have any info?

[ClydeCoulter]

I don't expect Ben Swann to come to any final conclusion. I expect it to end with, there are yet questions that need to be answered.

[ClydeCoulter]

FB Post (26 mins ago):



Elektable

Quick update: Episode 5 is compressing right now. Should be uploaded and ready for viewing in a few hours.

[ClydeCoulter]

It's up on BenSwann.com

http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/

[Thor]

It's up on BenSwann.com

http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/

Thx

[ItsTime]

It's up on BenSwann.com

http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/

Should be it's own thread? +rep

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm waiting for it to finish compressing for youtube.
Electable said it will take a couple of hours (an hour ago).
I'll post it if someone else doesn't after it's up.

[ItsTime]

I'm waiting for it to finish compressing for youtube.
Electable said it will take a couple of hours (an hour ago).
I'll post it if someone else doesn't after it's up.

Ok cool.

[ZENemy]

I owe donnay a rep for almost every post he has in this thread! :D

[donnay]

If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you.

Really. *SIGH*

Are people that gullible?

[Cap]

Good video. Thanks.

[ClydeCoulter]

Really. *SIGH*

Are people that gullible?

Yes. :(

[jmdrake]

I'm not one of those 9/11 truthers really. I admit, I believe in the official story, but, I also believe what Ron Paul when he talks about blowback, making 9/11 an unexpected consequence of America's foreign policy actions. When I mean unexpected, however, I mean the nature, time, and date of the retaliation attack. It was obvious that there was going to be some retaliation, but from who (we pissed off a lot of countries in the past) and when was totally unknown.


There is a difference between what Ron Paul tells the MSM outlets about 9/11 and what he really believes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I

[jmdrake]

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

lol. You don't really take that Popular Mechanics crap piece seriously do you?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

if all it took was to start a fire to make a building crash down onto itself, then the demolition business would be OUT of business. Wooden houses burn longer, people.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Budgets

9/11 Investigation Commission: $11m+3m = $14 Million

Bill Clinton/Lewinsky Oral fixation Commission: $200 Million


http://www.ginandtacos.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the_more_you_know2-300x197.jpg (http://www.ginandtacos.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the_more_you_know2.jpg)

[jtap]

Budgets

9/11 Investigation Commission: $11m+3m = $14 Million

Bill Clinton/Lewinsky Oral fixation Commission: $200 Million


http://www.ginandtacos.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the_more_you_know2-300x197.jpg (http://www.ginandtacos.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the_more_you_know2.jpg)

Without sources I went to verify your figures. The first was very close to what I found. The second, not so much. The point is still valid though.


Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q5


back in 1998, the "Clinton-Lewinsky blowjob investigation" had a $40 million budget

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/02/03/msnbcs-ratigan-decries-budget-clinton-lewinsky-blowjob-investigation

[Bastiat's The Law]

So, truthers assume that building 7 was a controlled demolition? What would be the point of that?

[Bastiat's The Law]

There's also video footage inside building 7 prior to the collapse. I never see conspiracy theorists discuss that.

[ClydeCoulter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

[fr33]

I don't expect Ben Swann to come to any final conclusion. I expect it to end with, there are yet questions that need to be answered.

That's pretty much how it went and there weren't really any new revelations in the video except for the poll numbers.

[ClydeCoulter]

That's pretty much how it went and there weren't really any new revelations in the video except for the poll numbers.

It is a good introduction video for those that are not in the know, those that are so "2001" on the issue :D

[Thor]

There's also video footage inside building 7 prior to the collapse. I never see conspiracy theorists discuss that.

Can you post a link to that here?

[PatriotOne]

So, truthers assume that building 7 was a controlled demolition? What would be the point of that?

I posit Building 7 was command central for the false flag. It's tenants included New York's (Giuliani's) Emergency Command Center, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. Perhaps they had to get rid of the evidence.

[ClydeCoulter]

SEC & EEOC:
Attack Delays Investigations
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles


Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. 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.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system.

[donnay]

There's also video footage inside building 7 prior to the collapse. I never see conspiracy theorists discuss that.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tr0TZa3WeI

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

[Antischism]

I think it's important to ask these questions, even investigating the theory of a controlled demolition. However, I've come to a position where my argument is simply that the attacks were known in advance (LOTS of proof to this) and allowed to happen (proof here too, given the advanced knowledge and what transpired on the day of). I find people are more receptive to that theory and if you start talking about controlled demolitions, they dismiss it as conspiratorial and nutty.

[Natural Citizen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo


Ben seems to be fiddling with less relevant terms of controversy. I almost want to all it spin but won't. Follow the money, Ben. See who was whom on this day of reporting. Where their paths eventually took them in this "war on terror". Works...

[donnay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJI6YvK_TK0

[Natural Citizen]

I think it's important to ask these questions, even investigating the theory of a controlled demolition. However, I've come to a position where my argument is simply that the attacks were known in advance (LOTS of proof to this) and allowed to happen (proof here too, given the advanced knowledge and what transpired on the day of). I find people are more receptive to that theory and if you start talking about controlled demolitions, they dismiss it as conspiratorial and nutty.

Yep. Kind of scwewy that the feller with the patent on junk just happened to be there that day, made it out alive and then went on the news to tell us how to respond as a nation...and then got put in charge of some shenanigans in Iraq....Whoooa..

Chertoff group went to the bank to...or so I hear. Security gurus got rich(er) on this. Of course, it helps when you're scribbling up the rules that guarantee it too so...yeah.

Need to force Kissinger out of the woodwork too.

[jmdrake]

There's also video footage inside building 7 prior to the collapse. I never see conspiracy theorists discuss that.

Fine. Post it and we'll discuss it.

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Let's see. WTC 3,4,5 and 6 were all hit by more burning debris than WTC 7, yet they didn't collapse. And if the premises in the above video were true than many other buildings, such as the Madrid Tower in Spain, should have collapsed but they didn't. Sorry but your video is circular reasoning.

[jmdrake]

I think it's important to ask these questions, even investigating the theory of a controlled demolition. However, I've come to a position where my argument is simply that the attacks were known in advance (LOTS of proof to this) and allowed to happen (proof here too, given the advanced knowledge and what transpired on the day of). I find people are more receptive to that theory and if you start talking about controlled demolitions, they dismiss it as conspiratorial and nutty.

It depends on the people you talk to.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-OfVkka1Yk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQSX2VMcT0

But I agree with your overall premise. The evidence regarding the foreknowledge is uncontrovertible. Still, people play whatever Jedi mind tricks on themselves that they need to in order to stay in their cognitive bubble. For instance I've seen some people even hear at RPF try to rationalize away the fact that the FBI told their own informant to use real explosives in the 1993 WTC bombing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7AtLD-oWqc

[Ender]

So, truthers assume that building 7 was a controlled demolition? What would be the point of that?

Apparently the insurance, which I understand was greatly increased just before 911.

Also Prof Stephan Jones from BYU found nanothermite among the ruins, which signifies an inside job. He was conveniently put on administrative leave after his findings.


On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using nanothermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, characteristics of dust jets, eyewitness reports of explosions in the lower levels of the buildings, partially corroded beams, molten metal in the basements that remained red hot for weeks following the event, and that no modern high rise had ever collapsed from fire. Additionally, Jones claims that he has identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and tiny iron spheres) were also found in the dust.[12] He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government.[13] Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a research paper entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on his page in the Physics department website, noting that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.

[goRPaul]

So, truthers assume that building 7 was a controlled demolition? What would be the point of that?

Destroy the evidence. The 23rd floor of WTC 7 was reserved for the CIA, DOD, and NYC Office of Emergency Management. This is where the demolition of the towers was planned and organized.

[Theocrat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCPcvJ-TkDQ

Update:

Reality Check: More Americans Are “Rethinking” 9/11 (http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/)

Update #2:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

That is definitely a must-see video, whether one believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy or a just a theory.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Can you post a link to that here?

Here's the complete documentary. What makes this film unique is all the video footage shot inside the towers.


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15575929AabEZqCB


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15575930PaXFz5yX


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v155759313JTf3QH7


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15575932YdgQryST

[Peace Piper]

Can you post a link to that here?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

"raging fires" in WTC7

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6321/95z9.jpg


Windsor Tower, Madrid Spain after real raging fires

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG/342px-TorreWindsor1.JPG
Full resolution
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG <-----Must See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_Windsor

[HOLLYWOOD]

Without sources I went to verify your figures. The first was very close to what I found. The second, not so much. The point is still valid though.I've done the research before and posted a detail comparison in historical commissions investigating controversial events. I even posted the correct expenditures adjustments for inflation, for accurate comparison... e.g. Warren, Iran-Contra, etc... I can't find my post with the shitty search engine on this forum.

[RickyJ]

So, truthers assume that building 7 was a controlled demolition? What would be the point of that?

Anyone that thinks WTC 7 wasn't brought down with explosives is too dumb to converse with. I have had enough of you people! Consider yourself ignored!

[axiomata]

Why did Ben interview an aerospace/communication engineer and not a structural engineer?

I took a quick look at a page (http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/786-nists-claim-in-its-final-report-about-the-lack-of-shear-studson-the-floor-support-girder-between-columns-44-and-79-is-exposed.html) making the engineer from Ben's video's case in more detail and it appears that the structural engineer's drawings do not show field installed shear studs on the girder in question.

Below is that webpage's commentary. My responses are in red.
June 2004 NIST app. L pg 6 [pdf pg 10]"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders."
June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5) (http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=860567)

This is a the most generalized form of statement in regards to shear studs and it does not have any falsehoods.

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [pdf pg 59]
"Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] [​It was deleted because beams are not synonymous with girders in this context. Beams frame into girders.] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center**. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders." [The structural engineer's drawings (S-8) do not include studs on the girders such as the one NIST believes "walked-off" its support. Still no falsehoods.]
Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2 (http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861611)

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the “absence” of shear studs to help make their case. [Well they were absent on the gravity girders in question according the structural engineer's drawings.]
August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [pdf pg 87]
"At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams."
Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) (http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610)

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST’s misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up
*NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, Fig. 12-4
** "on center" - a term that means "apart"[This is just a general detail that says to see the plan drawings to locate shear studs. As I mentioned, the engineer's plan drawing covering the critical floor (S-8)does not call out studs on girders.]


http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2013/08/wtc7-shear-stud-plan.jpg
Structural engineer Ron Brookman found that the Salvarinas “Fabrication and Construction Aspects” a document that outlines the basic structural system of WTC 7, shows 30 shear studs on the girder in questiion [I shouldn't have to say that this paper is not a construction document. I'm not sure the source of this document. There are some floors that the engineer modified the typical S-8 drawing and added shear studs to girders so it may be based on one of those. If I were NIST I too would base my model on the structural engineer's drawings that do not show shear studs here.]

[I]http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2013/08/wtc7-typical-floor-framing.jpg (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html)
Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects (http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Salvarinas_1986.pdf)The erection drawings show field-installed studs on the beams but not the girder between columns 44 and 79, leaving open the possibility that they were installed in the fabrication shop before being brought to the site. A note on the drawing says "For additional studs see cust. dwg. S8," but the corresponding note has been erased. [Sure, there's a possibility of shop installed shear studs but we don't have a drawing telling the shop to install them on this level. Most shops aren't going to install something if they don't have to. If foul play was involved in erasing notes after the collapse why wouldn't they also erase references to it. More likely, the engineer was lazy and just erased a revision as opposed to issuing a new revision undo-ing the previous revision. The erection drawing E12/13 likewise does not show field installed shear studs]WTC 7 Blueprints Exposed Via FOIA Request: Building Plans Allow for Deeper Analysis of Skyscraper’s Destruction (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html)
Drawing E12/13
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2013/08/e12-13_beam_length-cropped.jpg
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2013/08/e12-12-notes-e-cropped-520x168.jpg
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2013/08/s-8-rev.-i-missing-note-520x360.jpg

[Peace Piper]

Why did Ben interview an aerospace/communication engineer and not a structural engineer?

I took a quick look at a page (http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/786-nists-claim-in-its-final-report-about-the-lack-of-shear-studson-the-floor-support-girder-between-columns-44-and-79-is-exposed.html) making the engineer from Ben's video's case in more detail and it appears that the structural engineer's drawings do not show field installed shear studs on the girder in question.

Below is that webpage's commentary. My responses are in red

See also this truly excellent thread at Metabunk by poster gerrycan- 6 pages, 204 replies in 1 week:
http://metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/


Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

We produced four short videos at a technical level that would be understandable by most people. If our findings are accurate, they are strong evidence that a new independent investigation is required to determine why WTC7 fell so rapidly and symmetrically.
4 videos, approx 21 minutes. If anyone wants links to the relevant drawings etc, i will do my best to put them up for you. We are a genuine research group, and are interested in opinions on this information, whether you agree with our conclusions or not. We are happy to discuss the information openly and honestly with anyone who is genuinely interested. I would also be interested in ways we could improve the information on the videos or make it easier to understand.
link to the playlist
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl

http://metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2013-9-6_16-40-28-png.4106/

http://metabunk.org/attachments/col44_detaila-jpg.4135/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQI6gOw9y-c&

Excellent debate, great videos and Gerrycan manages to swat the flies rather nicely

[axiomata]

See also this truly excellent thread at Metabunk by poster gerrycan- 6 pages, 204 replies in 1 week:
http://metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/
Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

We produced four short videos at a technical level that would be understandable by most people. If our findings are accurate, they are strong evidence that a new independent investigation is required to determine why WTC7 fell so rapidly and symmetrically.
4 videos, approx 21 minutes. If anyone wants links to the relevant drawings etc, i will do my best to put them up for you. We are a genuine research group, and are interested in opinions on this information, whether you agree with our conclusions or not. We are happy to discuss the information openly and honestly with anyone who is genuinely interested. I would also be interested in ways we could improve the information on the videos or make it easier to understand.
link to the playlist
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl

http://metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2013-9-6_16-40-28-png.4106/

http://metabunk.org/attachments/col44_detaila-jpg.4135/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQI6gOw9y-c&

Excellent debate, great videos and Gerrycan manages to swat the flies rather nicely

I just happened to stumble across that thread while looking for raw drawing files. I agree, he presents the skeptic's case much better than I typically see elsewhere on the web (e.g. *youtube video* "omg freefall speed, omg your an idiot")

The problem is, as I mentioned, the design documents and the fab drawings do not show shear studs on the girder that NIST believes "walked-off" its seat.

The fact that there are shear studs on nearby beams is inconsequential to the NIST theory. The composite beam / concrete slab system, linked by shear studs, expand at elevated temperature at approximately the same rate. This is normally a very convenient fact of nature in reinforced concrete slabs since the whole composite system expands together and does not crack. However, this means we can't count on the concrete slab preventing beams from expanding and pushing the girder off its seat.

Also, gerrycan's video misguides his viewers by showing floor plans for floors other than the one that NIST believes the collapse was initiated at. Drawing S-8 covers a typical floor from story 8 thru 20 and would cover the 13th floor but he shows S-8-10 which is a special floor layout that supercedes S-8 only for floor 10 due to higher than typical loads or custom layouts.

[ClydeCoulter]

I just happened to stumble across that thread while looking for raw drawing files. I agree, he presents the skeptic's case much better than I typically see elsewhere on the web (e.g. *youtube video* "omg freefall speed, omg your an idiot")

The problem is, as I mentioned, the design documents and the fab drawings do not show shear studs on the girder that NIST believes "walked-off" its seat.

The fact that there are shear studs on nearby beams is inconsequential to the NIST theory. The composite beam / concrete slab system, linked by shear studs, expand at elevated temperature at approximately the same rate. This is normally a very convenient fact of nature in reinforced concrete slabs since the whole composite system expands together and does not crack. However, this means we can't count on the concrete slab preventing beams from expanding and pushing the girder off its seat.

Also, gerrycan's video misguides his viewers by showing floor plans for floors other than the one that NIST believes the collapse was initiated at. Drawing S-8 covers a typical floor from story 8 thru 20 and would cover the 13th floor but he shows S-8-10 which is a special floor layout that supercedes S-8 only for floor 10 due to higher than typical loads or custom layouts.


We are a genuine research group, and are interested in opinions on this information, whether you agree with our conclusions or not. We are happy to discuss the information openly and honestly with anyone who is genuinely interested.

Contact them and discuss! :)

[RickyJ]

I just happened to stumble across that thread while looking for raw drawing files. I agree, he presents the skeptic's case much better than I typically see elsewhere on the web (e.g. *youtube video* "omg freefall speed, omg your an idiot")

The problem is, as I mentioned, the design documents and the fab drawings do not show shear studs on the girder that NIST believes "walked-off" its seat.

The fact that there are shear studs on nearby beams is inconsequential to the NIST theory. The composite beam / concrete slab system, linked by shear studs, expand at elevated temperature at approximately the same rate. This is normally a very convenient fact of nature in reinforced concrete slabs since the whole composite system expands together and does not crack. However, this means we can't count on the concrete slab preventing beams from expanding and pushing the girder off its seat.

Also, gerrycan's video misguides his viewers by showing floor plans for floors other than the one that NIST believes the collapse was initiated at. Drawing S-8 covers a typical floor from story 8 thru 20 and would cover the 13th floor but he shows S-8-10 which is a special floor layout that supercedes S-8 only for floor 10 due to higher than typical loads or custom layouts.

Steel is a very good conductor of heat. The expansion would be minimal and I am positive it was engineered for much worse fires and expansion without the girders being "pushed off their seat."

[RickyJ]

I see no fraud, just a reasonable hypothesis for a collapse mechanism

LOL! Reasonable my a$$! Adios dude, you are blocked, ignored, history!

[axiomata]

Steel is a very good conductor of heat. The expansion would be minimal and I am positive it was engineered for much worse fires and expansion without the girders being "pushed off their seat."

Steel's conductivity is a different property than its thermal expansion coefficient. As I mentioned, steel and concrete have about the same coefficient of thermal expansion even though steel is very conductive of heat and concrete insulates steel from heat.

[axiomata]

Contact them and discuss! :)

I registered as MÆST over there and waded in gently.

[ProBlue33]

I am glad this topic is allowed in the regular forum and not instantly sent too hot topics.

And expert on controlled demolition speaks out about WTC7


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

This guy knows his stuff, and if he questions it, then really everybody should break free of their patriotic cognitive dissonance and and least think about it.
Just like how many here were once neo-cons and broke free from that, it's time to level up once again.:)

[Fredom101]

I certainly don't believe the gov't's version of the events of 9/11. WAY too many questions left unanswered and way too many coincidences and holes in the story. However, I'm not a big fan of the theory that Building 7 proves it was an inside job. It certainly LOOKS like controlled demolition.

Let's say WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Does that might the government lit the fires that day too? Otherwise, how could they have blamed it on fire? If the building were not on fire, and it fell to the ground, their cover would be blown.

Also, has anyone analyzed the poor structure of the building? WTC7 was not designed to withstand fire. It was not built the same as the ones they typically compare to like the building in Madrid that burned for 18 hours and stood. I don't see any actual proof that it was demolished, other than that it looks that way.

In order for it to be demolished, they would have had to know there would be a fire, or they'd have to start one. I'm not buying either scenario.

Still, to believe in the government's story about 9/11 is to believe in a fairy tale. If the gov't was telling the truth, why so many unanswered questions? Why not follow up on the stock market puts on the airlines? Why not follow up on why the jets were not scrambled for 45 minutes? Why not interview the hell out of the air traffic controllers? And why can't the FBI release any of the videos of the plane allegedly hitting the Pentagon?

The questions go on and on, and to just say "I believe the government" is to bury one's head in the sand. But let's not go jumping up and down about WTC7 either.

[Fredom101]

Anyone that thinks WTC 7 wasn't brought down with explosives is too dumb to converse with. I have had enough of you people! Consider yourself ignored!

Did the gov't light the fires to the building too? Otherwise, how would they have known the building would be on fire that day? Or are you saying they wired it with explosives on the morning of 9/11?

[Fredom101]

Destroy the evidence. The 23rd floor of WTC 7 was reserved for the CIA, DOD, and NYC Office of Emergency Management. This is where the demolition of the towers was planned and organized.

How did they wire it all up on the morning of 9/11? OR, did they do that ahead of time and light the fires themselves that morning?

[jtap]

I've done the research before and posted a detail comparison in historical commissions investigating controversial events. I even posted the correct expenditures adjustments for inflation, for accurate comparison... e.g. Warren, Iran-Contra, etc... I can't find my post with the shitty search engine on this forum.

I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything. It just didn't seem like a good thread to not post any sort of references to numbers since this subject matter gets everyone skeptical.

I would be curious to see this old post of yours though. Sometimes it is more successful to search your terms on google and restrict it to this site.

[Peace Piper]

I certainly don't believe the gov't's version of the events of 9/11. WAY too many questions left unanswered and way too many coincidences and holes in the story. However, I'm not a big fan of the theory that Building 7 proves it was an inside job. It certainly LOOKS like controlled demolition.

Let's say WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Does that might the government lit the fires that day too? Otherwise, how could they have blamed it on fire? If the building were not on fire, and it fell to the ground, their cover would be blown.

Also, has anyone analyzed the poor structure of the building? WTC7 was not designed to withstand fire. It was not built the same as the ones they typically compare to like the building in Madrid that burned for 18 hours and stood. I don't see any actual proof that it was demolished, other than that it looks that way....


Too Many Years Of Lies: From Mossadeq to 9/11
Paul Craig Roberts September 10, 2013

----------excerpt------------


It has been proven conclusively that World Trade Center Building 7 fell at free fall which can only be achieved by controlled demolition that removes all resistance below to debris falling from above so that no time is lost in overcoming resistance from intact structures. NIST has acknowledged this fact, but has not changed its story....


Do you know what temperature self-cleaning ovens reach? The self-cleaning cycle runs for several hours at 900 degrees Fahrenheit or 482 degrees Celsius. Does your self-cleaning oven melt at 482 degrees Celsius. No, it doesn’t. Does the very thin, one-eighth inch steel soften and your oven collapse? No, it doesn’t.

Keep that in mind while you read this: According to tests performed by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), only 2% of the WTC steel tested by NIST reached temperatures as high as 250 degrees Celsius, about half the temperature reached by your self-cleaning oven. Do you believe that such low temperatures on such small areas of the WTC towers caused the massive, thick, steel columns in the towers to soften and permit the collapse of the buildings? If you do, please explain why your self-cleaning oven doesn’t weaken and collapse.

...On this 12th anniversary of 9/11, ask yourself if you really want to believe that temperatures half those reached by your self-cleaning oven caused three massive steel structures to crumble into dust.

Then ask yourself why your government thinks you are so totally stupid as to believe such a fairy tale as your government has told you about 9/11...

MORE
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09/10/too-many-years-of-lies-from-mossadeq-to-911/




(Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford University...From early 1981 to January 1982, Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy)

Fact Check: Temperature of Self Cleaning Ovens


Overall, oven cleaning technology consists of three types: (1) self-cleaning pyrolytic ground coat,[1] (2) non-self-cleaning ground coat, and (3) catalytic continuous clean enamels. The first reduces foodstuffs to ash with exposure to temperature between 900–1000 °F (482–538 °C),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven

[Fredom101]

Too Many Years Of Lies: From Mossadeq to 9/11
Paul Craig Roberts September 10, 2013

----------excerpt------------


It has been proven conclusively that World Trade Center Building 7 fell at free fall which can only be achieved by controlled demolition that removes all resistance below to debris falling from above so that no time is lost in overcoming resistance from intact structures. NIST has acknowledged this fact, but has not changed its story....


Do you know what temperature self-cleaning ovens reach? The self-cleaning cycle runs for several hours at 900 degrees Fahrenheit or 482 degrees Celsius. Does your self-cleaning oven melt at 482 degrees Celsius. No, it doesn’t. Does the very thin, one-eighth inch steel soften and your oven collapse? No, it doesn’t.

Keep that in mind while you read this: According to tests performed by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), only 2% of the WTC steel tested by NIST reached temperatures as high as 250 degrees Celsius, about half the temperature reached by your self-cleaning oven. Do you believe that such low temperatures on such small areas of the WTC towers caused the massive, thick, steel columns in the towers to soften and permit the collapse of the buildings? If you do, please explain why your self-cleaning oven doesn’t weaken and collapse.

...On this 12th anniversary of 9/11, ask yourself if you really want to believe that temperatures half those reached by your self-cleaning oven caused three massive steel structures to crumble into dust.

Then ask yourself why your government thinks you are so totally stupid as to believe such a fairy tale as your government has told you about 9/11...

MORE
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09/10/too-many-years-of-lies-from-mossadeq-to-911/




(Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford University...From early 1981 to January 1982, Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy)

Fact Check: Temperature of Self Cleaning Ovens


Overall, oven cleaning technology consists of three types: (1) self-cleaning pyrolytic ground coat,[1] (2) non-self-cleaning ground coat, and (3) catalytic continuous clean enamels. The first reduces foodstuffs to ash with exposure to temperature between 900–1000 °F (482–538 °C),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven


Ok so you believe the gov't lit the fires in building 7 too?

[axiomata]

Ovens are designed to run at 900F. Buildings are designed for 70F and suppress fires with sprinklers, or insulate structural members long enough for people to get out and firemen to arrive. And since 9/11, to build in enough redundancies to prevent progressive collapse.

Ovens on the other hand are designed to operate at 900F regularly. I don't know a whole lot about oven design but they may use a grade of steel with better high temperature strength and creep properties than A992 or A36 structural steel. More importantly, your oven is lined with a ceramic or enamel insulating liner to protect the steel. The backside of any steel plating is the exposed to 70F air which cools the steel.

Georgia Tech and Berkeley degrees would be relavent if they were in engineering. I'm guessing he's just a smart liberal arts guy. Which is fine, just not relevant to his argument.

[Cap]

Ok so you believe the govt lit the fires in building 7 too?
Have you ever considered that maybe building 7 could have been flight 93's intended target? This would explain the hurried response to pull the building if there were financial records and other nefarious evidence that had to be destroyed when flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, not making it to it's intended target. Wasn't there large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission? Wasn't there government agencies such as the IRS, the Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA within the building? It would stand to reason that if the government was involved, then taking out building 7 was paramount. Are you saying that it is impossible that the fires were not intentionally set?

[Cap]

Have you ever considered that maybe building 7 could have been flight 93's intended target? This would explain the hurried response to pull the building if there were financial records and other nefarious evidence that had to be destroyed when flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, not making it to it's intended target. Wasn't there large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission? Wasn't there government agencies such as the IRS, the Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA within the building? It would stand to reason that if the government was involved, then taking out building 7 was paramount. Are you saying that it is impossible that the fires were not intentionally set?

Just my theory of course.

[specsaregood]

Update #2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo
pretty good, well worth a watch. just about what I expected.

[brushfire]

Notice how it closes "And that is reality check"

A dig on the former employer? Was this the kind of national content that they didnt want Ben covering?

[jmdrake]

Ok so you believe the gov't lit the fires in building 7 too?

Why is that even a problem? If WTC 7 was wired for demolition that happened prior to 9/11. You think incendiary charges couldn't have been part of the mix? I'm not saying that they were, but certainly there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have been.

[Fredom101]

Have you ever considered that maybe building 7 could have been flight 93's intended target? This would explain the hurried response to pull the building if there were financial records and other nefarious evidence that had to be destroyed when flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, not making it to it's intended target. Wasn't there large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission? Wasn't there government agencies such as the IRS, the Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA within the building? It would stand to reason that if the government was involved, then taking out building 7 was paramount. Are you saying that it is impossible that the fires were not intentionally set?

Anything is possible. I'm just trying to follow Occam's razor here. What's most likely? I don't know a ton about building structure, but the building was on fire and collapsed. Assuming that it's controlled demolition is purely speculation. And again, I don't believe much of the gov't's story, I'm just trying to keep everything scientific and what the most likely thing that occurred was.

[Fredom101]

Why is that even a problem? If WTC 7 was wired for demolition that happened prior to 9/11. You think incendiary charges couldn't have been part of the mix? I'm not saying that they were, but certainly there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have been.

Then we have to prove that the building was wired and that people started the fires or remote devices started the fires. Possible, yes, but still purely speculation and we have no evidence for it.

Why can't the government be wrong and we just say we don't know exactly what happened, but we DO know that the official version is bunk?

[jmdrake]

Then we have to prove that the building was wired and that people started the fires or remote devices started the fires. Possible, yes, but still purely speculation and we have no evidence for it.

1. We who?

2. I take it you've never read much Sir Author Conan Doyle?

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.


Why can't the government be wrong and we just say we don't know exactly what happened, but we DO know that the official version is bunk?

I don't know anyone who says they know exactly what happened. I do know people who have done research and experiments to eliminate the impossible. Some of that research is linked in my sig. And that doesn't even go into the nano-thermite residue. That said, the WTC 7 evidence isn't even the strongest evidence of a government conspiracy regarding 9/11. I think Michael Springman's testimony about the CIA issuing visas to terrorists pre-9/11.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk1bCgcY2Hk

[vita3]

Inside Job without a question. I've had two close friends this year tell me, they finally realized it.

Never forget & never forget who uses that day to invade other countries & take their natural reources. Secure $Billions in Gov contracts, take away American Liberties etc. etc

Same Global Cabal waging war in Syria thru Jihad proxies are the hidden criminals of Humanity.

[Fredom101]

1. We who?

2. I take it you've never read much Sir Author Conan Doyle?

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.



I don't know anyone who says they know exactly what happened. I do know people who have done research and experiments to eliminate the impossible. Some of that research is linked in my sig. And that doesn't even go into the nano-thermite residue. That said, the WTC 7 evidence isn't even the strongest evidence of a government conspiracy regarding 9/11. I think Michael Springman's testimony about the CIA issuing visas to terrorists pre-9/11.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk1bCgcY2Hk

We didn't eliminate the impossible. It is POSSIBLE the building fell because of fires. You can assign whatever odds you'd like to that, but it IS possible.

[ZakCarter]

Epic Swann Goodness!

[goRPaul]

How did they wire it all up on the morning of 9/11? OR, did they do that ahead of time and light the fires themselves that morning?

I don't have the links readily available, but the WTC towers had multiple fire safety inspections in the months prior to 9/11. For some of these inspections, the buildings were mostly or completely evacuated.

I don't know how the fires started, but I know they weren't started by a plane, boxcutters, or debris.

[Natural Citizen]

The droids yer looking for reside in the seismic data. Come on, people. Get with it.

[Peace&Freedom]

We didn't eliminate the impossible. It is POSSIBLE the building fell because of fires. You can assign whatever odds you'd like to that, but it IS possible.

No, it's not possible for a building unevenly damaged by ASYMMETRICAL fires, to collapse SYMMETRICALLY into its own footprint. IF a steel framed building could be damaged asymmetrically to the point of total collapse (which never happened before 9-11, and has not happened since) it would fall in a lopsided fashion, not into its own footprint. A symmetrical collapse requires a symmetrical cause, not random building fires. So the random fire cause of the WTC collapse is eliminated.

BTW, we don't have to know where/how the building got rigged for controlled demolition, to conclude the building fell by controlled demolition. That is a secondary detail question, that could be perhaps answered by a true independent inquiry. Just as when the police show up at a murder scene and find a sword sticking out of the victim, it's pretty clear the person was killed by a sword---WHY somebody would kill that way, and when/how it happened is just part of the follow-up investigation. The tactic of emphasizing secondary or third level questions that 9-11 truth critics use diverts from the primary evidence (e.g., a rapid collapse of buildings into their own footprint) clearly indicating controlled demolition of the WTC.

[dannno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

You didn't watch the OP? A 2012 FOIA request proved that they lied about WTC 7.

Throwing up NIST Reports about building 7 is like throwing up a Hillary Clinton report on Benghazi. Are you really going to believe that crap?

[dannno]

How did they wire it all up on the morning of 9/11? OR, did they do that ahead of time and light the fires themselves that morning?

There were renovations being done on the elevator shafts in the year before 9/11 on both towers, and electricity to the top half of one of the towers was shut down the entire weekend before.

[ClydeCoulter]

We didn't eliminate the impossible. It is POSSIBLE the building fell because of fires. You can assign whatever odds you'd like to that, but it IS possible.

3 of them, the same day, never before, never since. Really?

[ClydeCoulter]

I have heard that the average human can only handle 7 things (on the same subject) simultaneously. I'm starting to think it's much less than that these days.

Okay, is 9/11 a consequence of blowback or an inside job. Now that's only 3 levels. Official story, or blowback, or inside job. How do any of those correlate? I understand there a several theories about inside job. So let's expand it to 4. Official, blowback, allowed to happen, inside job. How we doing?

It's the merlot...so, don't play if you don't want to.:)

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Rather than analyzing physical evidence, I wish Ben would follow the trail of the assassins like Jim Garrison and Dan Hopsicker.

Rather than re-thinking physics and archetectual issues, I think it would be more fruitful for Ben to re-gum-shoe the trail blazed by Hopsicker. Ben should go to places like Venice, FL to hunt down and reinvestigate people like:

- Atta's Venice girlfriend Amanda Keller last seen hiding from the FBI in Ohio
- Atta's Venice flight school benefactor Wally Hilliard
- Atta's "brother" and fellow flight school operative Wolfgang Bohringer
- Atta's Venice Quickie Mart hangout owner and $70,000 money order processor Makram Chams
- The Venice Avenue Pharmacy owner whose video tape of Atta's father was altered by the FBI
- The Venice hospital psychiatrist who witnessed Atta and the gang at Chams' Quickie Mart

In the movie JFK, Mr. X told Garrison something like "everybody wants to know who? and how?, but the real question is why?"

Much more light is shed on the why of 9/11 by following the trail of the assassins. You have to look at the big picture, the interactions and behaviors of the various networks involved in the financing and execution in order to get down to the all important question of "why?"

Hopsicker just posted a new article on his site:

The FBI took a powder: Things you never knew about 9/11 (http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/09/12/the-fbi-took-a-powder-things-you-never-knew-about-911)

My favorite of the bunch:



"Extremely well-connected, check. And friendly Arab government? The friendliest!"

Gaining admittance to the International Officer’s School at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery would have required Atta to be
extremely well-connected with a friendly Arab government. I learned just how well-connected after finding the resume of an International Officer’s School graduate from the United Arab Emirates, Colonel and Staff Pilot Mohammed Ahmed Hamel Al Qubaisi, (shown in photo in recent posting as UAE Ambassador to Singapore) posted on the Internet.

Currently, his resume stated, he was a Defense Military Naval & Air Attaché at the United Arab Emirates embassy in Washington, after serving stints in his country’s Embassy & Security Division as Chief of Intelligence, and in the UAE’s Security Division/Air Force Intelligence & Security Directorate as Security Officer.

It’s safe to say that Mr. Al Qubaisi is pretty dialed-in in the UAE, and the furthermost thing from a terrorist. He’s a member of the Arab elite. It even looks like he’s a spook.

And so was Mohamed Atta.

Later I heard from the former wife of a CIA pilot who had worked on Maxwell Air Force Base. “I have a girlfriend who recognized Mohamed Atta when she saw his picture after the attack," she told us.

"She met him at a party at the Officer’s Club. And the reason she swears it was him here is because she didn’t just meet him and say hello. After she met him she went around and introduced him to the people with her. She knows it was him.”

She also said that Saudis were a highly visible presence at Mawell Air Force Base. “There were a lot of them living in an upscale complex in Montgomery. “They were all gone the day after the attack.They had to get all of them out of here.”


Enough with the "termites in the WTC" research. I was hoping that Ben would follow a path of real investigative reporting.

[Thor]

Can you post a link to that here?


Here's the complete documentary. What makes this film unique is all the video footage shot inside the towers.


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15575929AabEZqCB


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15575930PaXFz5yX


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v155759313JTf3QH7


http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15575932YdgQryST

Fascinating view from the inside... Thanks for sharing. But I don't see how the video(s) support, or refute, the cause of the collapse(s) either way. We all know and agree the planes hit the buildings. I am not firmly on either side (pure terrorists, or planned in advance on the inside) for 9/11. Either way, it was a horrible, devastating day. I have seen "A Noble Lie" and I have an opinion on OKC. The fact that the FBI had warnings and alerts of people training to fly but had no interest in wanting to know how to land, and the BBC 20 minute advance claim of WTC7 collapsing are sure suspicious in and of themselves without any technical analysis.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Ben Swann rules! I knew he'd come out on the side of truth :)