9/11 – a Retrospective

There is an ancient Indian saying that something lives only as long as the last person who remembers it. My people have come to trust memory over history. Memory, like fire, is radiant and immutable while history serves only those who seek to control it, those who douse the flame of memory in order to put out the dangerous fire of truth. Beware these men for they are dangerous themselves and unwise. Their false history is written in the blood of those who might remember and of those who seek the truth.

Albert Hosteen, Season 3 premiere, X-Files

After the end of the Cold War the United States military stood unchallenged throughout the world – and was struggling to find a new purpose, facing budget cuts and base closures, with defense contractors consolidating and going out of business. Many were unsure of what the future may hold, yet others saw opportunity. Chief among the those eager to capitalize on this unused war machine was the Neocon think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) – led by none other than the architects of the later Iraq War. In 1996, its proponents such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith wrote ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ prepared for then Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu arguing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and containment of Lebanon and Syria. James Bamford, NSA scholar and author of ‘The Puzzle Palace’ and ‘Shadow Factorytold Keith Olberman in an interview that Perle, et. al. tried to get the United States to intervene on Israel’s behalf during the 1990s, to which Bill Clinton, to his credit, refused. Calling for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ to galvanize American support for Israel’s wars in the Middle East, PNAC had to wait until a new President, George W. Bush, son of former President H.W. Bush and eager to impress his father after a life of failures in business and struggles with drugs and alcohol, to launch a new offensive at Saddam Hussein, who had earlier tried to assassinate his father.

Most Americans remember exactly where they were and how they felt the morning of September 11th, 2001 when news reports around the world told of a surprise attack on America’s tallest buildings and the control center of the US military industrial complex at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. Like many I was emotionally shocked and horrified by what was shown on television, and like in any psychologically traumatic situation, desperate for answers and a solution. When the White House and US intelligence agencies were quick to name Al Qaeda as the prime suspect, I wanted action. Most Americans did too, and when George Bush stood atop the still-smoldering rubble pile in New York and declared on his megaphone that “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon” I cheered along with the crowd. The subsequent rapid deployment to Afghanistan and eventual invasion of Iraq – albeit on extremely shaky evidence – satiated a deeply felt desire for revenge. It wasn’t until the years dragged on, and the Middle Eastern campaigns turned from triumph to quagmire – my generation’s Vietnam – that I began to lose faith in the military’s capability and credibility. My doubts about American leadership were further amplified as years of trade deficits and financial pyramid schemes centered around the US housing market finally caught up with the American economy as bank after bank started to fail, sending economic shockwaves to other industries and around the world.

The first inkling I felt about the incredulity of the whole 9/11 affair began when they supposedly captured and killed Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011 – conveniently leading up to Barack ‘we got him’ Obama’s re-election campaign and coinciding with a highly-publicized Hollywood production ‘Zero Dark Thirty’. The fact that Bin Laden’s body – a man who was at the TOP of the FBI’s most wanted list for 10 years – was never produced, with the shaky explanation that he was ‘buried at sea’ in accordance with Muslim practices (despite the millions of Muslims living in land-locked countries) made me seriously doubt the official narrative. Seal Team 6 – the newly touted elite special forces unit leading the Bin Laden raid – was killed in a freak accident in August, 2011, covering up any eye-witness testimonials. Charles Strange, father of the killed SEAL Michael Strange, said on numerous occasions his son warned him he suspected ‘something was up’ and believes his son was murdered. And despite all that, the US military occupation of Afghanistan continued for ANOTHER 10 years after Bin Laden’s supposed capture, in PAKISTAN, removing even more credibility to the claim that America’s Afghanistan incursion was to stop Al Qaeda’s leader Osama Bin Laden. What is more believable, and simply by staring at a map of the Middle East for a minute will reveal, is that Afghanistan, along with Iraq, encircle the Zionist’s top target for years – Iran – the only country to remain un-invaded after Wesley Clark’s infamous ‘7 countries in 5 years’. With the New York times pushing for war in Syria in a daily basis and Lebanon having already been invaded by Israel in 2006 – the whole Neocon vision seemed to be taking hold at the great expense of American lives and treasure.

Physics is true, everything else is debatable.

Elon Musk

Which leads us back to how this whole 20-year charade began in 2001. For me, the first place I looked was the physical evidence – or lack thereof. Most people without a construction or engineering background on first glance might see the footage of the World Trade Center explosions and assume the spectacular nature of the impacts were plausible reasons for sending the buildings down. Upon closer examination of several structural anomalies, however, this narrative does not hold up.

Firstly, the impact holes on the Twin Towers created by the supposed airplanes violate a basic law of physics – that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For two objects in space, the force of impacting goes in both directions – in our case the 130,000 kg Boeing 767 and the 450,000,000 kg Twin Tower. The weight imbalance alone (roughly 1 to 3400) indicates the Twin Tower would easily absorb an impact relative to the airplane. Furthermore, the thin aluminum body of the airplane versus the heavy steel structure and concrete decking of the 110 floors of the Twin Tower would indicate a large imbalance between the structural strength of the two objects favoring the Twin Tower again, leading one to expect the airplane to shatter in pieces before penetrating the steel building. Yet the opposite happened, with the airplane allegedly going through not just the exterior of the building but out the back of it as well in the case of the second strike at the South Tower. Not only this, but the wing TIPS – the smallest and most fragile part of the airplane’s exterior – apparently broke through the much heavier and thicker steel columns of the building as well. This just would not happen – especially accounting for the torsional effects on the wings of an airplane plunging into a thicket of steel beams – much like running through a doorway with your arms outstretched. Your arms, or the in the case of the towers the wings – would simply fold backwards and away from the walls, not through them as shown by the impact craters. Explosives strategically placed along the columns would be a more plausible an explanation.

Secondly, the argument that the fires from the airplane’s jet fuel weakened the steel beams causing the collapse was possibly a red herring from the start. Many engineering analyses put the roughly 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in each airplane burning up in about 30 seconds, corroborated by survivors of the impacts such as Donovan Cowan.

We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that’s when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.

The NIST report arguing that the fires from OFFICE FURNITURE were actually the reason for the collapse is even more ridiculous, given the history of no building ever collapsing from such an event, supported by the fact that building codes require office buildings to be designed to withstand such fires. Eye witness reports from firefighters and video of the day showing molten metal pouring from the sides of the building and remaining in the rubble pile (which smoldered for weeks thereafter by the way) indicate extreme temperatures near 3000-4000 degrees F, much hotter than wooden tables and chairs might generate, and more akin to a pyrotechnic such as thermite. Skeptics argued thermite would not be capable of melting steel beams, yet simple backyard experiments by civil engineer Jonathan Cole proved this to be actually be very possible. Furthermore, the US Army has patents on military-grade thermitic weapons useful for demolition.

Thirdly, the speed and nature of the collapse of all World Trade Center buildings leads one to question the various ‘official’ explanations of the ‘pile driver’ and ‘pancake’ theories, which argue that the upper sections of the Twin Towers falling downwards pushed the lower sections into the ground. While this makes logical sense, it does not explain the rapidity of the collapses, which occurred at near free-fall speed. In order for the ‘official’ explanations to make sense, the upper sections falling would somehow need to OVERCOME the same equal and opposite reaction of the lower sections resisting the downward force of the fall. Yet the upper sections, falling with merely gravity on their side, would SLOW down as the lower sections absorbed the impacts. The entire buildings collapse however at free-fall speed, as if the lower sections were removed in a controlled demolition using explosives.

Probably the most suspicious of all New York building collapses was World Trade Center 7, which did not suffer an airplane strike at all. Also falling at free fall speed, the firefighters on the scene of World Trade Center 7 (as well as from 1 and 2) all report hearing massive explosions prior to the building’s collapse, further indicating controlled demolition. Owner of the World Trade Center leases, Larry Silverstein, had purchased the rights to the buildings months before the September attacks, and insured the buildings specifically against terrorism WEEKS before the buildings came down, which he later claimed to be two not one incident and doubled his insurance payouts. On the day of the events, recordings of Silverstein telling his insurance company to ‘pull it’, referring to WTC 7, raised enormous suspicion he not only had foreknowledge of the attacks, but also had a hand in orchestrating the operations. 30 minutes prior to the collapse of WTC 7, the BBC mistakenly reported the building, which they referred to as the ’Solomon Brothers Building’, had fallen – indicating to many they had been given advance warning of the event by those who planned to carry out the controlled demolition.

Numerous professional airline pilots have also come forward expressing extreme doubt as to the ability for amateur hijacker pilots, trained on light single engine aircraft, to not only master the extreme complexity of the control surfaces of a major jetliner like the Boeing 767, but to also then fly the planes at top speed at low altitude into targets requiring maneuverability of a fighter jet. Among the expert critics is John Lear, son of the founder of Lear Jet and a former CIA pilot, arguing the not only do the flight paths not make sense, but also the speed of the jets alleged by NIST would have been impossible given the intake capabilities of turbofan jets and relatively high air density at low altitudes, as well as the structural limits of the air frame. Skeptics of the possibilities of planes hitting the building have argued at the possibility of CGI post-production graphics distributed to the media or the use of remote-controlled or autonomous military drone aircraft hitting the towers.

And speaking of no planes, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash sites leave the most to be desired in terms of evidence of any planes whatsoever. Despite being the nerve center of the largest military apparatus the world has ever known, the Pentagon has no surveillance footage of any airplane striking its side. There was also zero wreckage outside the building. Given the fact that the Pentagon sits extremely low to the ground compared to the Twin Towers and and the pilot of a jet would have to fly at speed along the ground as the official story contends would indicate extreme skill – again by amateur pilots who had only trained in light one ton aircraft – not hundred ton jet liners. Many speculate a missile instead struck the side of the building. In Shanksville, the crash site is so devoid of any evidence of any airplane the official story argues the plane somehow burrowed into the ground, including its wings, which unlike in New York, decided to fold up this time and slide into the ground without any wreckage whatsoever. Honestly the crash site looks more like they hired some backhoe operator to move some dirt around and then toss his cigarette on the surrounding grass to make it look like a fire.

Almost all of the physical evidence that did remain – mainly that of the wreckage in New York – the hijacker passport conveniently found atop the rubble pile notwithstanding – was sold off to China for scrap by Alan Ratner for a handsome profit.

And then of course there are the multitude of suspicious activities leading up to September 11th, including power downs in the building and unmarked vans arriving for weeks in August in the middle of the night. Many would speculate they were planting explosives – the truth however is less certain as the security cameras were conveniently turned off.

What followed the attacks on 2001 was nothing short of a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ in terms of reshaping and realigning America and Americans towards the ‘global war on terror’. The Patriot Act being rushed through with the help of an Anthrax scare targeted at congressmen hesitant to sign, as well as the rollout of full body scanners at airports and mass, warrant-less surveillance of all citizens by the NSA. The Patriot Act was applied to Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset, who at the time was following orders to give the Iraqis warning that there would be an attack on 9/11, and if they did not cooperate they would be blamed. When she came forward she was sent to prison for five years. Michael Chertoff, the man put in charge of the 9/11 Commission (after George W. Bush’s initial pick – Henry Kissinger – was met with howls of protest) had been put in charge of homeland security, was profiting off the airport scanners through his company, and had removed an FBI investigator into looking into the fact the ZIM group, an Israeli shipping company, had pulled out of their leases prematurely from the World Trade Center right before the attacks. Some speculate it was his cousin, Benjamin Chertoff, who was the senior researcher on the infamous Popular Mechanics hit piece on the 9/11 Truth movement.

Yet despite all this, no one seems to have been brought to justice. The recent declassifying of the ‘missing 28 pages’ reveal the wife of ‘Bandar Bush’, Saudi royalty and family friend of the Bush family, was responsible for funding the hijackers. The war in Afghanistan was brought to a humiliating close with the hasty retreat from Kabul that left thousands of Americans and refugees behind, and the State Department and CIA’s thinly-veiled propaganda efforts literally painted over by the Taliban. The sad fact is the American Empire is rudderless, having been picked clean of its military and economic assets, squandered on pointless foreign incursions, consumerism, and deranged social engineering experiments. The Chinese, having waited patiently all the while working assiduously to perfect their economic engine, have already started making inroads into the American withdrawal in Central Asia with their Belt and Road initiative. As US politicians squabble over mask mandates and trans bathrooms and Americans go ever further into debt, China builds another thousand miles of bullet train track and earns billions in foreign currency from their world-beating exports. In the words of my co-host Hans Lander, “this country will probably will never recover from the events of 9/11.” And as the 20th anniversary of the events is upon us, I’ll close with a quote from former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who stated.

All the democratic circles in America and Europe, in particular the Italian intelligence agency, know very well that the catastrophic attack was planned and carried out by the American CIA and Mossad, with the help of the Zionist world, to accuse the Arab countries and to persuade the Western powers to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

If history is any guide, governments will continue to lie, and the people will continue to believe them. For those that remember, however – never forget.

20 Comments Add yours

  1. Lamprey Milt says:

    I got into an argument with Banned Hipster who started calling me a Jew when I poked holes in the “Explosives strategically placed along the columns” theory”. He haf mention that the demolition charged could’ve been placed during an elevator upgrade and I had responded with the follow:

    You would need the building superintendents/chief engineer to sign off on contractors work where they would take pictures and document it for the property manager NOT the building owners.
    There would still be too many people involved in order to place explosives. Let alone months ahead.
    In addition to this you would have to submit permits and the DOB would also have to sign off on the job and inspect the work that was done and then there would be routine inspections by whomever the usually elevator contractor is.

    solid-state-drive technology to replace the existing motor generator sets. THESE ARE ON THE ROOF!

    9 months means they are doing each elevator car and they wouldn’t be there everyday during that time span. I would reckon it would take 3 to 4 business days to install in these so called “unauthorized” areas where the super would probably poking his head in while sipping his coffee asking questions. Then run a battery of safety tests before signing off for regular use.

    Where were these charges placed? How long would it take to rig? Must have been placed behind walls. If so again a super/porter/handyman who wouldnt be “in” on it would sound an alarm. And those guys know EVERYTHING thats going on right down to who clogged the toilet on the 96th floor.

    You can try pulling up the filings on the job to get more information. Im not sure if you can for the original WTC. But if the job is for elevator drivers and you are trying to link it to demolition chargers you’re theory is dead in the water. They are on the roof and thats just 1 problem.


    On a side notes about 9/11.

    Those first responders and people who worked around WTC site who have been dying of cancer are dying from the mercury in the florescent light bulbs. NYPD new within the first 2 weeks that the worksite was toxic, Search and rescue dogs died quickly.

    I visited WTC in December of that year and saw the fire with my own eyes. What could be burning like that months later?

    More people would’ve died if it wasn’t for the fact there was a Monday Night Football game with the Giants playing. People called in sick.

    Those who died in tower 2(south tower) sadly were stuck in a state of shock looking at tower 1. Imagine being on the 80th floor looking across at a gaping hole with people jumping out?

    The people evacuating both towers were calm, cool and collective. Its amazing how in some instances people freakout and pandemonium ensues and in other instances they dont.

    Planes did hit and I have no idea where and why the conversation of holograms came up. Anyone who said planes did not hit is a dumbfuck.

    About WTC 7. There are photos of what the corridor and lower floors looked like before the building was “pulled”. The area was an inferno and WTC 7 wasn’t the only building that was destroyed. What about 3,4,5,6? Sure they may not have fell and there footprints were smaller but were either half collapsed or destroyed none the less. What caused those fires in WTC 7 I can only guess and we may never know since 9/11 has turned into mythology and perhaps done so deliberately.

    Focus on who benefits and from there you will know more.

    Happy 9/11.


    1. stallard0 says:

      It’s not necessary to strap explosives to the bare structure of a building to blow it up. In 1605, a group of treacherous papists plotted to demolish the English Parliament (the old Palace of Westminster) with both the king and parliament in attendance. They obviously couldn’t rig the building itself, so they rented a nearby property that conveniently had an undercroft (basically a basement) that led directly underneath the building. They surreptiously filled it with dozens of barrels of gunpowder, and covered those with firewood and coal (ordinary items to store at the time) to conceal them. Fortunately, the government had been apprised of this plot by intellegence, and thwarted it primarily upon the suspicious character of the man guarding this payload (one Fawkes). Of course the explosives were never set off, but it believed with good evidence that if they had, they indeed would have destroyed the building.

      I won’t draw any direct comparisons, but I believe some of the elements of this 11/5 (5/11?) plot may be illustrative.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Limeo says:

    You are right that the whole event is quite obviously a cynical and almost certainly engineered attempt to manipulate public opinion to pass population control measures and justify wars for Israel.

    All the same, I’ve always felt that sperging out over the physics/ engineering aspects of it is a red herring. Sure, the building collapses look very suspicious and strange, jet planes are relatively flimsy contraptions and wouldn’t be able to fly like that etc. but I’ve never understood the logic of the deep state setting up a controlled demolition. Was their considered view that a plane going into the side of a building that otherwise remained intact *wouldn’t be enough* to justify Iraq and the Patriot Act, but the buildings collapsing on their sides and wiping out half of Manhattan would be *too much*? And why bother with Building 7 at all?

    I suppose they aren’t quite as smart as we make them out to be, but can always bank on the bulk of the public being at least as stupid and credulous as they need them to be. In the end, thousands upon thousands of people died needlessly and that’s all that really matters.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. stallard0 says:

      The purpose of terrorism is, as the name implies, to strike terror. They were playing to the visceral emotions, the lingering trauma, not crafting an explanation Sherlock Holmes couldn’t untangle. Think of it like they do, like a Hollywood production. The money shots were the giant explosions, falling skyscrapers, and the gaping hole the size of a city block. Everything else is just a means to these, even the obscene death toll. And just as you don’t burn down the studio for some pyrotechnics, you don’t destroy the city for a shot of buildings collapsing. The whole thing really was one of the most macabre farces ever perpetrated.


  3. scott dinger says:

    I am baking a cake.

    Another thought out and thought provoking essay.

    I will enjoy sharing this.

    I too do not forget.


  4. BoomerConQ 🇺🇸🇮🇱 says:

    someone told me to look up “dancing Israelis 911” on Google – what does this mean?


  5. bannedhipster says:

    @Lamprey Milt

    > There would still be too many people involved in order to place explosives.

    This is a complete red herring. How many is “too many?” There were dozens of teams of engineers and workers in the towers every single day. There was constant construction. We even have Scott Forbes eye witness account of an unknown group of workers in the towers during the building wide power down the two weekends before 9/11

    More importantly, I am many other people have demonstrated that there was plenty of opportunity to rig the buildings for demolition, the elevator upgrade project being one possible opportunity. Your appeals that some bureaucratic procedures would prevent such a thing is absurd; bureaucratic processes are changed, and ignored, all the time.

    What can’t be argued away with rhetoric is the physics. The towers did not “collapse” they exploded and were demolished – just watch the videos.

    I reacted to your trollish comments in the appropriate way. I’ve come across random people purporting to “debunk” 9/11 via some claimed expertise and a bunch of words, you are one in a long, long line, and your rhetoric about the bureaucratic process for elevator upgrades are not just unconvincing, your claims at “debunking” any “conspiracy” via a factoid is not arguing in good faith.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Sun reader says:

    Excellent poast, Adam. Made a cup of coffee before sitting down to read and it did not disappoint (both your poast and my coffee). Thank you for gathering and explaining some of the major points of this event. This also doesn’t even touch the bizarre esoteric elements that surround 9/11, such as fore knowledge through predictive programming or numerology (9/11 in Roman numerals displays a ‘Black Cube’ within the middle negative space. If I’m not mistaken the 9/11 memorial is an inverted Black Cube.)


    1. Adam Smith says:

      There’s so much wrong with the official story it’s difficult to condense it all for people already interested in the truth – let alone the general public. I do believe there are many aspects of this story that different personalities can relate to, however, whether it’s the suspicious owner’s behavior, financial options trading indicating foreknowledge, physical flaws in the collapse narrative, esoterica, or simply the subsequent wars that served no national interest to help people start questioning things.


    2. Lamprey Milt says:

      Your appeals that some bureaucratic procedures would prevent such a thing is absurd; bureaucratic processes are changed, and ignored, all the time.

      This was not some rent stabilized dump in Canarsie. Get your fingers out of your ass and realize the great difficulty in order to pull this off.

      Like Trump said they aren’t sending their best. ;-D

      Great chat in myth the other day.


  7. Big T says:

    ‘Steel structures can’t collapse from fire’ and ‘it was clearly controlled demotion’ are memes quite frankly. That highrise in Tehran coming down a few years back after 3 hours of fire should have put them out of their misery forever, we even have video of the ‘free fall’ collapse


  8. Thomas says:

    Why fly planes into a building filled with explosives? Just use explosives..but rigging a building to explode is hard and takes time,easier to get caught or worse have a fizzle or dud. Keep it simple stupid. They flew planes into cheaply built skyscrapers and our government used this opportunity to enrich themselves(again).

    The Pentagon lack of video will always be extremely suspect, or maybe they relied more of foot patrols than electronic surveillance in the 1990s.

    I think they shot down the plane that crashed in PA. Better optics to say the ppl bum rushed the cockpit that to say an AIM-120 ripped the plane to ribbons.


    1. bannedhipster says:

      They were not “cheaply built skyscrapers.” It’s not a meme, it is basic physics. The buildings did not “collapse” they were demolished. How anyone can watch the videos and not see that instantly is astonishing.

      It’s like talking to religious fanatics.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Punk Kid says:

    Reconstructing what happened when the planes hit the towers and the following events until collapse is a gargantuan task if you want to do a complete job. You need to look at the WTC as it was laid out, as it was actually constructed, and as it aged, analyze what concretely did happen, and then determine what out of all known and hypothesized causes best fits the results on those buildings and on that day. Summarily: you need to have your own 9/11 comission.

    Since any individual is incapable of doing all the work to pin down how the physical event occured it is useless for individual people working without citing something like a trustable 9/11 comission to say much more than “what I saw doesn’t match what I was told”. Tracing networks of people who benefited and their realtionship to the event is easier because the evidence for networks of people isn’t inaccessible like much of the necessary evidence for the physical event, and it gets most if not all of the important questions answered without getting bogged down in the quagmire of inaccessible evidence that was permanently destroyed over a decade ago.

    I think a lot of the drive for trying to understand the physical event comes from the dissonance people experience when they seen and experienced certain things and then were given unsatisfactory explainations to the questions raised in their minds while the world was visibly changing in front of them. I was four when this all happened though, so I never really experienced 9/11 in a self aware way, and I think that more than anything accounts for my disinterest in theories of thermite and missiles. It is in all ways completely behind me, ancient history all the effects of which played out before I could even understand them.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. NC says:

    Great 911 Moth20C episodes.
    THx and keep up the good work.


  11. Sam J. says:

    The argument that “aluminum isn’t as strong as steel” is dumb and if you are going to to use it you undermine your arguments that 9-11 was an inside job. You are wrong about the wingtips going thru steel. Here’s a picture where you can clearly see the wingtips did not go through. They only roughed up the cladding. However the wings did go through further in towards the root of the plane.


    The reason in extremely simple. The wings have fuel in them and at these high speeds fuel is incomprehensible and might as well be granite. That you say different undermines you position because people intuitively understand that things going fast have “momentum” and that causes a force no matter what the material is. An example, I’ve seen pictures of plastic pellets fired at high speeds at thick aluminum plates and basting through them. Another very simple example that shows this. Socks are not strong, condoms are not strong, water is not strong but if I put a condom in a sock, fill it with water and hit you in head with it at 100mph I promise you you will feel it if it doesn’t kill you outright. So stop using that dumb argument.

    Maths to prove this, F=1/2*M*V^2

    Another stupid argument is that the planes could NEVER reach the speeds they do. Now it may very well be that military planes were substituted but even if they weren’t planes have a lot of reserve strength. I mean do you think they make planes that reach a certain speed then fly apart all at once? Also as they were somewhat descending they could pick up extra speed. It’s just a dumb argument and shouldn’t be used.

    To make sure you understand were I stand the Jews did 9-11 and the US government let them get away with so I’m not trying to defect what has been done just show that you shouldn’t use weak arguments when…you have building 7 which anyone can see was demoed.

    @Lamprey Milt says,”I got into an argument with Banned Hipster who started calling me a Jew when I poked holes in the “Explosives strategically placed along the columns” theory”. He haf mention that the demolition charged could’ve been placed during an elevator upgrade and I had responded with the follow:

    You would need the building superintendents/chief engineer to sign off on contractors work where they would take pictures and document it for the property manager NOT the building owners…”

    You are either a Jew or you are dumb as a box of rocks. Like people who are going to blow up the world trade center are worried about filling out the right forms?????


    1. Adam Smith says:

      Thanks, Sam. You make a good case for why the wing tips is not the damning evidence some (including me) have pointed to. Upon closer examination of the photographs it does seem like the tip impact sections on the buildings are showing the aluminum cladding having bounced off, with the steel actually being strong enough at that section to withstand the relatively small mass, which is where I was coming from and does comport with some basic physics intuition. Yes, the faster something goes, the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed as you showed with the formula. So it can do a lot of damage, enough to bend steel provided the mass is large enough. I always focused on the Newton’s Third Law aspect, however, which states that while the steel on the exterior of the building could very much be damaged, it would still do just as much damage to the plane. The absence of any bounceback wreckage still bothers me tremendously. And the footage of the impacts are extremely suspicious, show zero debris, the entire plane sailing through the building, THEN an explosion. I think there is a good chance at least some of those videos were doctored.

      Regarding the structural integrity of the planes at those altitudes and speeds – I defer to the pilots who have questioned it, as well as the published flight envelopes of the 767. Granted – and I agree with you – those are probably just safety recommendations. Does the plane fall apart outside the envelope? I really don’t know. Like everyone basically in this debate, none of us have ever built or flown a 767. There are a lot of pretty compelling discussions on this topic, citing other (unmodified) 767s losing control under less extreme conditions: https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg20 What I was attempting to do with this article was present as many arguments as possible, which I think, within reason, are plausible. Some are much stronger than others, others less so. It’s helpful to refine these by having an honest debate.

      What I do worry about, however, is when people fixate on one aspect of someone’s point of view and use it to dismiss the rest, which may be perfectly valid. The zero wreckage at Pennsylvania, for example – no one has ever argued with – but some conveniently ignore it to then poke holes in the much more complicated case of the World Trade Centers for purposes I hope are not to simply look smarter than someone else, but could potentially be to spread disinformation and doubt to guide people back towards the official narrative. I don’t think you were trying to do that, but for people who aren’t curious or very thorough can react very emotionally and turn off when there is nuance. Engineers have this problem testifying before juries, when they answer, honestly, that there is maybe a 95% chance of something. But the damn attorneys then start getting in there and confusing the jury by saying “but there’s still a 5% chance, right?” and the engineer will usually, say, honestly, “yes.” It’s just human psychology, and we’re not designed to think probalistically. Most want simple, clean explanations and in absence of that will default to the simplest, cleanest available even if it contains gaping problems under the surface.

      So, again, thank you. I just want us to remember most of us are honest actors out here frustrated with all the lies, so of which are more obvious than others.


      1. Sam J. says:

        “… I always focused on the Newton’s Third Law aspect…The absence of any bounceback wreckage still bothers me tremendously. And the footage of the impacts are extremely suspicious, show zero debris, the entire plane sailing through the building, THEN an explosion…”

        Do not worry about this. The whole thing makes perfect sense in all aspects. The plane was going at tremendous speeds and it disintegrated, I’m sure, within feet of it going in the building. As for the force. It was full of fuel. Jet fuel is like hydraulic fuel and I have a hydraulic jack that you could fill with jet fuel, same as the light oil in hydraulics, and lift 50 thousand pounds with it. So it’s almost incompressible. At those speeds it’s no different from concrete.

        As for Newton’s Third Law, well let’s not forget the first,”The first law states that an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless it is acted upon by an external force.” so that plane once going is going to keep on going until the building stops it. As for the explosions as soon as the plane was shredded by the building the fuel atomized and burst into flames.

        “…Does the plane fall apart outside the envelope? I really don’t know. Like everyone basically in this debate, none of us have ever built or flown a 767…”

        I’m totally against agreeing with this because,
        #1 It didn’t fall apart. No one has any pictures of it falling apart but lots of people saw the plane so their argument is futile.
        #2 There’s a bunch of “spoofers” as opposed to “truthers” that are trying to use this argument to say that there were no planes at all and they were just holograms or photoshop or some other such lying nonsense to make anyone who disagrees with the “Jewish line” to look like a fool.

        “…What I was attempting to do with this article was present as many arguments as possible, which I think, within reason, are plausible…”

        I understand that and I hope you will not think me too aggressive when I say this is a bad idea. Stick with stuff more readily seen and not so estoric. There’s a lot, a whole lot of spoofers that are using lots of arguments to baffle the whole mess til no one knows anything(sound familiar).

        “…What I do worry about, however, is when people fixate on one aspect of someone’s point of view and use it to dismiss the rest, which may be perfectly valid….I don’t think you were trying to do that…”

        Not at all. I just believe that some of the arguments are made up by disinfo agents so I point out that they are not really valid and at the least are questionable.

        I can give you some good ones. Look at this picture of the volume of jet fuel that “supposedly” melted down the whole WTC compared to the building. Show this to someone who has no idea and they will immediately see something is wrong here.


        Show the molten metal pouring out of the corners. Explain that the metal HAS to be steel or some sort of iron because of the color. The color of things heated up directly corresponds to the temperature. They use this very fact to determine the temperature of molten metal to see how hot it is and that bright yellow means it’s molten iron. In the old days they would take a light bulb and calibrate it so that a certain color corresponded to the temperature of a metal they were melting. They would look at both at the same time and dial in the current so the bulb looked the same color as the metal to get a temp reading.

        Anything about building 7 is good. In fact I generally don’t talk about #1 and #2 at all because even the densest people can see there’s something wrong with building 7.

        building 7

        The North tower falling on building 7 was not why it fell.

        A simple illustration. Place four playing cards upright and remove one. The three cards still stand so even if you removed one wall it would have still stood and we know even that didn’t happen.

        There’s a video I have always linked but it’s private now. They keep deleteing them but it’s a reporter that went into building 7 AFTER a building had fell and you can see the whole back of the building is not knocked off. I’ll link it but it’s private. It’s a NIST freedom of information Act released video from reporters.

        NIST FOIA released video taken between one and two hours before building #7 fell. There’s around three floors on fire.

        Fireman retired so now he can talk. He was right next to the damn building. Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

        Here’s a guy who survived who actually saw pieces of the plane in the building as he came down the building. 4:05

        Something VERY important to point out about building 7 is it fell in free fall, which means only air held the building up, it’s even in the crooked NIST report(Only air, nothing else, that’s it). There’s no way possible you can defend the idea that a few fires caused all the columns to be vaporized to the same density as air in building 7 and that is what it would take, or demo, to make the building fall so fast.

        Here’s an astoundingly good short video by a mechanical engineer on the other buildings. It probably one of the best I’ve seen. It’s very to the point and sticks to the facts as can be seen. Before you watch this a spoofer tried to spoof me one time and linked a document on the way the towers were built. He goofed because I actually read the whole thing and found the outside columns were built to 2,000% load(For wind. Think of the force of wind when you hold your hand out a car window at a 100MPH and imagine the whole side of that building pushed by that force. It’s very large. Far higher than the force to hold the building up). So even if you removed a massive part of the building it could not fall. And even if the top flung down on the bottom, the bottom was made to hold up the top plus 2,000%. It just could not happen.


  12. Adam Smith says:

    @sam all reasonable points. In our podcast we covered the firefighters, and in the article as well I mention the molten steel. Regarding the 767, I do postulate it could be a drone. In any case, making things complicated for a new audience obviously doesn’t help. Again, I wanted to do this partly to elicit responses such as yours to find where the strongest and clearest arguments are. Thanks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s