2010, 9/11  -   330 Comments
Ratings: 8.61/10 from 283 users.

Hy.poth.e.sis is a documentary film that follows physics professor Steven E. Jones during a pivotal point in his life.

In 2005, Steven went public with a controversial theory regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. His assertion that the collapse was likely the result of pre-positioned explosives rather than the hijacked planes resulted in a backlash from the community and even threatened his standing as a professor at BYU.

Despite hate mail, threats, and even bribery to end his research, Steven refused to give in to overwhelming pressure and continued his pursuit of the truth.

For the majority of his career, Jones was known primarily to other scientists for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In late 2006, officials at Brigham Young University placed Jones on paid leave. He retired on October 20, 2006 with the status of Professor Emeritus.

Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations have long been critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.

More great documentaries

330 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I don't know what made that hole in Shanksville, but I do know that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland.

  2. Its quite simple,...the laws of physics don,t change,the obvious is there to see.....if your not completly brain dead,its has plain as daylight those buildings were deliberatly collapsed.

  3. Conspiracy Theory has another name, Forensic Science! Math and physics make the NIST report into a total fairy tale, hence theories fill that vacuum. How did box cutters take over 4 jets, shut down NORAD and camera's at the pentagon? Just what burned under water for over 3 months? AND the biggest question, where did the buildings go? Dust, not chunks rolled down and even floated up in the air. A much hotter fire brought down the Oakland freeway overpass in almost one piece, no melted steel. The dust that filled the streets was not hot. US Government has resisted all efforts to answer simple questions, therefore US Government becomes primary suspect in forensic science search for answers. "I wore a tin foil hat to protect my fragile brain while I wrote this response"

    1. That's a great explanation. Most likely, 'they' will never answer these questions.

  4. This is pure guessing. There is NO WAY You can say what would happen to these buildings without flying a plane into them: a plane of that exact size and shape, of that exact weight, at that exact speed, loaded with that exact force, in that exact weather, at exactly that angle, at exactly the same structure, built on exactly the same ground without testing it - It was tested theoretically, and your lab results didn't match. Sorry, but you're wrong, and you're not quite as intelligent as you think.

  5. D.W.D.: Yes, we are still living in the Dark Ages, ethically and politically. In the private sector, i.e., on a person-person level, the initiation of violence is considered unethical, but in the public sector, i.e., govt., it is considered necessary. Why? We are taught from kindergarten through college that being ruled (robbed & controlled, i.e., taxed and regulated) is the only way to have order. The opposite is true. But an elite (TPTB) perpetuate that myth (superstition) by public ed (govt. indoctrination) and mainstream media propaganda. Govt. is sacred, even as individuals in govt. are attacked the concept of being governed (controlled and exploited) is not questioned by most. The few who do question and point out the vicious actions of officials are viewed as crazy anarchists. Those who advocate no rule by anyone, but instead a non-violent society based on voluntary social interaction, are maligned, made fun of, misrepresented, and dismissed without considering their arguments.

  6. So basically back to square one. I believe the official 9/11 report is incomplete, and there are more questions that I'd like to see thoroughly discussed and explained. But because there are gaps in the official information the public was given doesn't mean that we can automatically assume a hostile conspiracy, either. The investigation was stopped too soon, I agree. But the reasons why it was stopped can't be found by debating the physics of what happened. My guess is that someone or a group of someones who have an obscene amount of money, connections, and influence over a lot of people had their interests threatened by the complete truth of what happened, used the aforementioned privileges to tamper with the investigation, and bought their way out of whatever sh*tstorm would have hit them had the truth come out. Yeah, we were lied to in order to protect the money people. Surprise, surprise. A lot of innocent people were killed and many more lives destroyed. Wouldn't be the first time. But a massive cover-up with false witnesses, flight survivors, Jewish takeovers, and inside help from the US government? That's just too sophisticated for the powers that be to sustain. The center wouldn't hold. Maybe the world isn't all that evil...maybe it just can't get its sh*t together long enough to pull something off of that magnitude.

  7. Interestingly a similar contingent tried to ruin and remove a Texas A&M professor Bockris for proving that Pons and Fleischmann were correct. He absolutely states that more energy in heat is output than input to their cold fusion now called LENR. He showed why their result "could" be somewhat difficult to repeat and I think he developed a better method or material which would provide better repeat ability. He explained what he did and what happened to him in a youtube video interview which I saw a couple / few years ago.

    He mentions others were able to repeat the experiments, Japan, etc. but you don't hear about it in the news.

    Seems to me far too many people are of the mindset that if it isn't on TV, it didn't happen, and if the govt puts out nonsense, people make up supposedly plausible reasons to believe it. Sadly I have friends like this. They truly fear information. If it disagrees with what they prefer to believe then it must be bunk and no reason to look into it any further. Meaning they prefer to believe what some clueless newscaster has been told to say over glaring evidence. Quite scientific don't you think?

    I'm curious if folks like @Harry N... dismisses Chemtrails as well and give authoritative sounding nonsense as to why they are supposedly bunk too? For those that disbelieve chemtrails and don't fear being wrong, Go visit the documents tab at geo engineering watch dot com.

    Those suggesting to take a look at Dr. Judy Wood's explanations of the tower fall. It is worth a look. She made a presentation to the Global BEM which can be found and is highly enlightening. I would add to that presentation that it appears that some of the lower floors used conventional thermite.

    Good luck in your search for truth. Just dismissing it all in favor of a nice cozy govt is at best naive. Ask any Native or Aboriginals.

  8. So so many comments over jones,silence is golden,truth is worthless truth is trouble truth is pain truth to the establishment is damning,they'll get rid of all truth is god truth to the establishment ,no,they are truth they will all rot in hell that's the truth

  9. So these jets were flown/crashed into the very floors where bombs were placed?

    Or bombs were placed on all floors?

    C'mon people...geez.

  10. Great work, having an Engineering background I love your work. You are very courageous continuing this work...Thank-you. Did you find any molten gold dust in the samples ??
    The official investigation should have investigated this - If there was nothing to hide - maybe the "terriorists" planted the explosives.
    The scariest part of this whole event is how dumbed down the general public, and how scripted the news media has become.

  11. First let's understand one very important perspective about so-called conspiracy theories. The very first conspiracy theory was given to the public by the US govt. That theory has not been investigated at all and fails miserably under the same scrutiny as opposing theories. It is to be assumed that the govt. is correct. Why ?

    Second, there are so many questions that in any real investigation that would need to be investigated that were not. Somebody asked about external videos of the pentagon. The pentagon is singularly subject to the most video surveillance of any bldg. in the world. Add to that the gas station on pentagon property, Va. Dept. of Trans. (VDOT) had videos of the attack with cameras on nearby roads plus a nearby Sheraton Hotel had videos.

    Why did the FBI confiscate those and 83 videos in total of that attack ? Plus, why after losing FOIA cases in fed. court to disclose them did the FBI then claim after saying the didn't even exist, that they were then destroyed ? Why were they destroyed ? Why was there no commercial jet liners found at the pentagon and PA. crash sites ? No passengers, no seats, no engines and no freight. Why were two of the four planes with matching tail nos. to those used on the attack, seen in service as long as 1 and 2 years later ? How did at least 6 of the alleged hijackers one interviewed by BBC with a week of being accused...survive ?

    Why did the FBI fail to return the flight recorders to the NTSB for the first time in history ? Who bought 20,000 stock options and investment banks (mostly international) make million$ selling short on UAL and AA not weeks or months prior to the attack but mostly 1-3 days before so ?

    There are many more unanswered questions that draw overwhelming suspicion upon foreknowledge and insider benefits of 9/11 and of course... the official story.

  12. This is so s*upid. Controlled explosions first make massive noise that can be heard from miles around, and they don't collapse from the top down, but from the bottom up.

  13. is it possible a plane made of aluminium alloys crashing into the iron building could potentially lead to the creation of the red chips? all the raw materials are there and plenty of energy... maybe an experiment could be recreated with a building which is set for dismantling and a plane thats beeing scrapped to end the debate whether such events are possible

    1. A plane flown by a suicidal pilot?

  14. if building 7 was a controlled explosion, why no visible signs of explosions going off?

    1. First of all, watch some videos of controlled demolitions. You will find that many of them show NO signs of explosions - In buildings (like WTC 7) that have internal support, you don't see the explosions because they are in the center of the building.

      Look at the second angle - you will see an explosion coming out of the top right of the building. So, there is your sign.

    2. That is called a pressure air wave, it is caused by two flat surfaces collapsing against each other. Building 7 burned for hours and hours and hours. Moreover most of the photos claiming to show the burning face of the building actually show the opposite face of the building......
      I am a structural welder by trade and I can tell you what brought down all 3 buildings. The first two buildings suffered massive structural damage due to large impacts and were further weakened by prolonged fire, really the structural damage would have been enough given time and a strong headwind. Building 7 was brought down by fire, nothing more than fire, you don't have to reach the MELTING point of steel to weaken it structurally, prolonged heat at or around 500 degrees F would be enough given the length of time the central base of building 7 burned.

    3. If that's true and fire made that building fail then why didn't the other sky-rise buildings, in the past, that burned for longer and on many other floors not fall?

      No modern sky-rise building has fallen due to office fires in the history until that day. Multiple modern state-of-art structures collapse against all odds and defy reason all on the same day? Come on!!!!

      You're making a general statement about something that clearly is not true. These buildings were built to withstand the exact conditions seen that day yet they still dropped.... and in record time.

      If your profession is what you say it is then sir you might want to find other work because I don't trust you welding anything.

    4. Before you ask why no signs of explosions please explain how it fell in the first place.

    5. Planes flew into it. #Occam'sRazor

    6. But no plane flew into Buiding 7. Just the twin towers.

  15. welcome to university, those places where ideas are freely discussed without retribution. #not

  16. I didn't mean for my comment to distract from the core of this situation - The only party capable of rigging the buildings with military grade nano-thermite; of ordering NORAD to stand down; and then promoting those in charge on the day instead of court-marshalling them is the top level of the government. The fact that the Obama administration has failed to reverse the oppressive measures of the Bush administration and has in fact extended and expanded them should tell you that there is an authority at work here with even more control than the government.
    We are getting lost in stupid detail and every day we fail to act - that authority get stronger.
    I know this is a hard pill to swallow but if we don't turn our opposition into action on the street our children may find themselves slaves in an Orwellian nightmare.
    I pray we are not too late.

  17. A true hero and a true patriot. BYU shame on you.

  18. In an episode of Get Smart the criminal organization Chaos planted explosives in a building they were constructing. I say Mel Brooks and Buck Henry gave somebody the idea.

    1. That would be KAOS.

  19. Dr Judy Wood on Youtube offers a path to more breadcrumbs back to one of the possible slices of bread. Yes, here Steve's story seems plausible, however his public vote of no to Cold Fusion validity research years ago left me questioning his integrity. This documentary is a distraction, nonetheless it is still a piece of the puzzle. Let's not stop there, the rabbit hole is a lot deeper...

  20. Surely, the only question to ask is why there was explosives in the dust.

  21. Why was there explosives in the dust should be the question to answer!

  22. So, I do believe that the WTC buildings came crashing down with more than just airplanes. I do believe that thermite, or some other explosive was used. However, if the Al-Qaeda is as powerful as the US government says it is, why is it not plausible that they, along with hijacking several airplanes, could have placed explosives in the buildings too. I'm not for one side or the other, and I definitely don't agree with everything our government does, but I think they deserve a fair trial.

    1. Those explosives were places months before 911. There have been WTC workers that told of suspicious activity going on, strange workers coming in, complete, unexplained closings of sections of the building, drilling noises. This event was in the makings for years. All they needed to do, was convince the American people, and trick us into going to war. See how easy it was? As we all no, The Devils biggest lie, is denying his existence. One day the citizens of The USA will take the time to face what's true, and then well can take back OUR country

    2. Yes, no doubt the devil is behind this. But you missed my point. Explosives were definitely used, but why couldn't the terrorists have been the ones to place them there? I hate the U.S. government, and wouldn't put it past them, but you can't just jump to conclusions. All we have is facts, and the facts don't point to either side.

    3. It is more likely than not, that the US Government had the motive, means, and the full control of the WTC! Those terrorist were merely patsies. The pentagon had already announced the missing BILLIONS of dollars....funny those banks of computers were the ones destroyed on 911. The whole day was orchestrated well in advance. Do u think any terrorists could have had access to the buildings, in order to plant explosives, without the full cooperation of the Gov't? If that were the case? Notice the hijackers passport was "found" by a Fed, days after? Unburned, in perfect condition. They continue to perpetrate this lie, because US citizens DO NOT want to believe it. The rest of the world has been convinced that the story given, is not true.

    4. First, the thermite used was US military grade. There is no way the "terrorists" could've got their hands on it, short on someone on the inside helping them.

      Second, the official story rules out the use of explosives, for obvious reasons. That's why the evidence was immediately carted off and destroyed, contrary to the rule of law and proper procedure for a criminal investigation.

      If the "terrorists" had planted the explosives, which would've been logistically impossible for many reasons, the US gov would have no reason to hide this from us.

    5. Why would our government not investigate this obvious inside job, whether it was Al-Qaeda or domestic terrorists, or....who else? It makes no sense not to want to get to the bottom of this.

    6. How in the world do you suspect that a "terrorist would be able to do ALL THAT, plus order The US Air force to stand down? All you need to consider is, "Who had the most to lose/gain." Please research the "MISSING TRILLION DOLLARS", from the pentagon right before 911. The millions of files of Wall Street Corruption, Enron etc., that was stored in building 7. Oh, have you been concerned at all, about the way building 7 came down? Do you think ALL THIS could happen coincidentally???? I have proudly served, but, tell me????? Did it look as though a 737 slammed into the Pentagon? It looked like no passenger plane crash site I'd ever seen!!!!!

    7. Why would our own government refuse to accept this man's evidence, especially given that numerous scientists and engineers have raised the same questions? Yes, it is remotely possible that Al-Qaeda could have planted the thermite charges, but they were obviously placed throughout the building from top to bottom in very exact and specific locations, then detonated in an exact sequence and with precise timing for the buildings to fall at fee-fall speed (no resistance) precisely onto their own footprints. So if it was Al-Qaeda, they had some pretty sophisticated equipment, computer models, plans of the building, and access to to a very closely guarded building. Maybe, but how likely? Again, the real question is why has all this information not only been rejected out of hand without any refuting evidence, but literally covered up by the government?

    8. Why would would you crash a plane into a tower that you are already planting explosives to blow up, it wouldn't add more casualties, when you could hit the plane somewhere else and blow up the building, doesn't make sense for there cause.

    9. That's actually a really good point.

  23. I recently watch Noam Chomsky at a lecture where he said (paraphrasing here) "...if there were solid facts that the attacks on 9.11 were caused by anything other than an airplane, I would consider it...but there has been NO scientific papers..." I hunted for a few weeks to see if there were, in fact, any science from any source. And I have to say, watching this video broke my heart. Why? Because I am absolutely positive Mr. Chomsky has seen it. And now, I've lost another person I looked up to as a source of facts, knowledge, education, and truth. I thoroughly enjoyed the simplistic anaylsis and, yes, Dr. Jones, the truth will set us free. Thank you for researching and sharing...even at the cost of your professorship.

    1. Can you list these scientific papers? (not published by a discredited pay for play vanity publisher whose editor quit over it or published in a journal created by truthers because no one else would touch their nonsense)

    2. I don't know. I watched an MIT documentary on 911 the other day (I must be in 911 mode) where a top professor was showing the free-fall status and that room was packed full. So, isn't there scientific docs out there?

    3. It was you that cast Chomsky's claim into doubt. Now you don't know and are just assuming? "A top professor"? You understand a basic tenet of science is to reject fringe and grasp consensus? What is the scientific consensus on the collapse of the towers? If we take AE911truth as representative, something like 1/100th of one percent of their field question the official story... is that one top professor worth listening to or is he simply far short of representative of the statistical occurrence of mental illness in the general population?

    4. Only 1/100th of 1 percent? Does that statistic also include those who know well enough to just shut up & keep their jobs safe? And does it also include those who only tow the official line because their emotional need to believe that society is safe, outweighs their silently screaming intellect which they have expertly stuffed into the bottom of their shoes from decades of personal denial at other levels?
      Humanity doesn't want to admit to the truth if it's ugly or it requires us to get up & change ourselves (god forbid). It's easier to live in
      fantasy, no matter how ludicrously stupid the view or result may be & it's only fear & habit that keeps us there - over 98% of human thought is habit...

    5. Ah yes the tired old argument that there are many more times the experts who would speak out in agreement with these unfounded allegations.... but do not for fear of losing their jobs.
      So who's been fired from their job for questioning or criticizing the government?
      It's a dodge, special pleading. Why don't you approach a professional society of architects or engineers at their next convention and tell them they're all too scared of losing their jobs they don't speak out about the mass murder of the century.
      What you are displaying are symptoms of delusions- persecutorial or grandeur. You believe that all around you are people who lack your courage, your ethics. Others can be bought for a pittance, or scared into a lifetime of silence by merely imaging they could be fired for speaking out.
      Everyone is scared but you.Too funny. I think I even saw in there a paraphrased "you can't handle the truth"?

    6. batvette: Kevin Robert Ryan was fired from UL for speaking out to the NIST commission investigation.

    7. He damn sure was!

    8. Ah yes the tired old delusion that the world is still the way it was 70 years ago, that we're all safe & that those who disagree with the mainstream thinking are obviously crackpots who belong in the loony bin - I'll bet that's exactly what middle class Jews thought about the wackos in their midst precisely before the gestapo stormed their little middle class villages...
      Consider this trollman, the world has NEVER been to this point before - over 7 billion people existing at once, now so tightly bundled onto a global package of humanity. 99.999% exist in some form of debt (temporary enslavement) whilst 0.001% exist in a unique position of power, capable of wielding extraordinary influence over the smallest feature of our societies in order to inflict the most incredible wave of potential on our lives. There is no way that you'd convince me that someone on this planet who likes power wouldn't have a crack at controlling that (& of course, stuff it up coz that's what humans do).

      No, I'm not delusional, sunshine, I'm standing back & looking at the situation from a much, much wider perspective, something you need to do too, because I do know an ostrich's arse pointed skywards when I see it.

    9. Oh, & btw batvette, Architects & Engineers are now 'questioning' whether steel & concrete should be abandoned as the mainstay materials for building our skyscrapers now, since aviation fuel is SO powerful & all... that's just a bit more that 1/100th of 1% now, but what would they know, hey? You're the expert...

    10. Ah yes, the tire old "tired old argument" argument, without a shred of information, evidence, or bibliography to suggest your out- of-the-ass assumption that all who aren't "for" the scientifically proven "theory" must certainly be against it. Well, batshit even you surely understand the ridiculousness of that argument. It's pretty obvious what your purpose is on this blog. You fool no one but yourself with your cleverness. Keep writing if you choose, but don't expect those of us with half a brain to be paying any serious attention to your babble.

    11. You make some great points here; namely, that the majority of people prefer fantasy over reality. Another name for fantasy might be "myth"; and the 9/11 story has certainly reached mythological proportions. President J.F. Kennedy, in a famous speech, had said that our greatest enemy is not some foreign government, but the MYTH - carefully contrived. What a smart man he was.

      He recognized the power of a really good story to lure in and captivate people; and he feared that future governments would do exactly that - they would create myths that people would rally behind without question.

      The jews who control the U.S. government (and who Kennedy tried to warn us about ) knew very well that the U.S. people would not support a jewish war against Iraq and the Arab states unless, of course, they could paint the Arabs as a very evil threat. And they did so brilliantly with 9/11, didn't they?

      It is difficult for me to believe that there are Americans who still actually believe the official story.

    12. It IS difficult to believe that in this day & age, there are still Americans who believe the official claptrap isn't it? Maybe it's just too painful to consider otherwise. Some people can't handle the sense of injustice, rage, horror & helplessness that comes with the acknowledgement & acceptance of such a travesty - and you know what I'm talking about don't you? As have all the rest of us who've had the courage to face it? And yes, it does take courage...

    13. batvette: You assume that all those not taking a position against the government conspiracy theory support the government conspiracy theory. I see a problem with this argument. Indeed in a recent meeting of architects and engineers, A&E Truth signed up 120 more.

    14. Are you suggesting that all the rest of the architects and engineers outside those 2,322 who have signed onto AE911, believe all three buildings came down due to fuel fires? Surely not. So if not, how many of them disagree with the AE911 engineers and architects?

    15. Typical truther obfuscation. You might as well have just screamed, like a toddler, "do the research! the truth... will set you free!"
      The other user stated, paraphrased, that scientific papers existed. I simply asked that they direct me to them. (discounting the ones not published n credible journals)

    16. You can choose any news video you wish and measure the rate of fall of Building 7. The frame rate is 30 per second and I assume the floor height it 12 feet. I find free free fall.

    17. Yeah, you really think the U.S. government would allow these kinds of papers to be published in credible journals?

    18. Newton's Laws of Motion are the subject of thousands of research papers.

    19. Typical truther obfuscation. You might as well have just screamed, like a toddler, "do the research! the truth... will set you free!"
      The other user stated, paraphrased, that scientific papers existed. I simply asked that they direct me to them. (discounting the ones not published n credible journals)

      They replied they didn't know.
      Toward your flippant reply, how many physics professors do conspiracy theorists have amongst their ranks? Not many for sure.
      Why don't you supply me with the basic calculations you've made which shows that a fire and impact induced gravity driven collapse was impossible? I won't hold my breath.

    20. Again, there have been, literally, thousands of papers published on Newton's laws of motion, each and every one of them confirming their validity. Newton's laws may be the most confirmed theories in the history of science. The official 9/11 Commission Report says that Building 7 collapsed, for the first 100 feet or so, with NO resistance. Zero. None.

    21. It doesn't say that at all, this is your interpretation and distortion of the report. You must think people are stupid.

    22. The original report had no initial free fall, but the revised report did.

    23. it is obvious that some people are stupid. Take a look in the mirror.

    24. Chill batshit. What's wrong with asking you for any shred of evidence that fuel fires could possibly collapse all three of those buildings? If you really are interested in evidence, you should want it from both perspectives, right?

    25. Can you list the scientific papers which prove that airplanes DID cause the collapse of those buildings ??

    26. Beware Chomsky. He is a disinformation agent of the highest order. His job was to assign a motive to the Arabs for launching the attacks, when they, of course, had nothing to do with it. The jews, the very wealthy ones who own and rule this planet, were 100% responsible for the destruction of those towers and the other buildings. (Also, think "lucky," Larry Silverstein, anyone?) We all, like fools, fell for the jew Chomsky's betrayal. As Benjamin Freedman said about his own jewish people (in another famous speech), "They will deceive you, they will deceive you, and they will deceive you again."

    27. My heart was broken as soon as the second plane hit. It was that second, that I knew the truth. I fell asleep after plane number two, cried out, When I woke later, and saw how FAR these SOB;S were taking it......The Pentagon. I'm military, I know a missile shot when I see it. Hell, a civilian can see that. I knew just what we had running the country. Some very dangerous people, who had sold themselves to the devil. And OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS would die. I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, several top Military brass, The ones who stood to gain, were responsible. I also believe, there is a special place in HELL for them all Top it off with this......They deliberately sabotaged the US fighter pilots to another area, to ensure the completion of the plan. ATC;s had to have been ordered to stand down. The plane cell phone calls STAGED. Betty Ong;s calls....scripted...where was all the screaming passengers??? She was reading directions. Next time you are in a plane, call some damn body. Let me know how that works for ya!

  24. It's good to see an effort promoted specifically to Dr. Jones. He often comes across and alof and too light-hearted in other programs that include many other more dry and less animated subjects. This is a great documentary to see specifically his sacrifice and contribution and focusing on him and his scientific integrity. Good Job!!!

  25. I would like to contradict the opening statement about not only airplanes hit the towers. My research concludes that no airplanes hit the towers. Just high explosives that were pre-planted.

    1. Your research was done with the concept high explosives are silent and leave no trace and detonate without blasting caps and wires, or remote control detonators, right?

    2. Not at all. I don't know where you got that idea. I still maintain that no airplanes hit those towers and none of those passengers in those airplanes died. None of the high jackers died either. All are living and only those poor souls at work died that day thanks to the terrorist Jews that staged it all. There is tons of research on that fact and I read all the time, do you or do you base your information on Fox News? It sound like it.

    3. If no planes hit the towers then explain why United and American airlines, and their insurance companies, claimed they did- an action costing each of them many billions of dollars? How many employees of those airlines would easily be able to verify the truth of those claims and would have come forward to say otherwise? You're talking thousands of employees. Why haven't they spoken out?
      Really, don't bother with an argument because if you can rationalize why that would happen you are not a mind that can be reasoned with. Thousands of employees in companies losing billions of dollars... and not a word about it from them. What, they don't have COURAGE, like you? They're SCARED of BUSH, unlike you?

    4. If you refer to everyone who doesn't see things your way as a "truther" ...Logically doesn't that make you a...um .. liar?

    5. oooooh how many times can I click 'vote up' to your comment?

    6. Okay nincompoop, tell us how many employees could "easily verify the "truth" of those claims? You are Mr. "give-me-the-facts"so tell us your sources.

      Well here are some facts: On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The lease deal didn't close until July 24th, six weeks before the attack.

      In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, "the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies." This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack. In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim (UPI)

    7. There does seem to be evidence that the passengers of selected aircraft died but not in the way that we're told.

  26. Steven Jones is a true hero for exposing the truth.

    1. He most certainly is

  27. I don't know anyone who likes to be lied to, but when the truth hits too close to home, most people tend to shy away. (the path of least resistance) The truth really does set you free, but at great cost. Steven Jones, in this particular circumstance, has decided that cost is acceptable, and his career was the price. (growth/enlightenment) Bruce Lee epitomized this concept by stating, " to honestly express oneself, to not lie to oneself, well, that my friend is very difficult to do".
    Whether people want to admit it or not, the tragedy of 9 11 was orchestrated on many levels, to serve many purposes, that originate from a root cause. (Greed/power) Some people call it conspiracy theories, I just call it the awful truth!

  28. Professor Steven E. Jones career became another "price paid" for truth in the 911 movement of bringing forth scientific material evidence and professional/expert reporting. This documentary does an excellent job of demonstrating this "high price" of truth - and the contribution that Professor Jones has made to this cause for independent and rigorous investigation.

  29. "the problem is trusting the government" no the problems apathy in the run up to 2000 the great British public were informed aircraft would fall out of the sky due to Y2K more like pigs will fly and pig squadrons since.

  30. Thermite:

    Easy to make but I won't go into this.

    Once you've got the appropriate portions of rust and powdered aluminum you can mix it with play-dough or other stuff. I won't go into the percentages.

    Now you need a high heat sourse to set it off as a high heat combustion capable of melting steel.

    Magnesium can be used but it must be protected from air or it will ignite. One can create his own IED here with a simple remote-coded device to rip the protective cover off the magnesium. Air hits the magnesium which ignites it and it burns very hot. This will ignite the thermite which will burn at an extreme heat.

    Child's play really.

    I don't know if thermite was the choice overall in the Towers and Building 7. But it seems to have been evident to some degree. This, one would think, would be a part of the government investigation. Seems not to have happened.

    1. The theory that the towers fell because of thermite induced melted steel has no evidence whatsoever to support it, and that evidence would be all too easy to find if it existed. Don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy.

  31. So the Mormons are lying, too. Dear, dear.

    I as approached, in Winnipeg, Canada, by a couple of guys selling their Mormon church. Being older now it gets me pissed off that they would come to my city and my country with their bs about their church.

    So I handed back their little card and I told them to go home and to protest the damned wars their country is causing all the time. One got really annoyed and he was held back by his buddy. I though the bugger was going to hit me!

    So I smiled and moved on.

  32. Well, the official story, if true, is about the easiest way to bring down steel structures. It's much easier, if true, then planting explosives throughout the three buildings.

    The problem becomes that the exaggerated, Hollywood move style collapse of the buildings was way over done. These Hollywood style collapses were just stupidly over done. So much so that they entered the realm of fantasy to a great degree.

    The big thing about the horror of 9/11 is the deaths of the collapses and the continuous assault by the USA thereafter. This is the true horror.

  33. What an i! Shouldn't tell how to make a nuclear bomb!

    S*it, man. It's on the net and it's in your library. Given me the equipment and I'm quite sure I could blow up anyone near!

    Sure it's a bit more than a Lego construct.

  34. What a joke! Trying to prove how the three buildings came down endangers the American public! But this guy seems serious.

    Suggesting that thermite being talked about endangers the American public is just nuts.

    I learned a bit about thermite from an American paperback in the 1970s. Better get out the book burner squads. Hilarious!

  35. History repeats itself. The conformed remain delusional and horrendous truths aren't exposed until it's too late for justice. Perhaps it's easier to see the reality from a distance, perhaps it's easier to block out any theories which may distort you're ideological world view. Most Americans were (and remain) blinded by the scale of the events on 9/11, accepting without question the official reports, desperate for any answers. It's extremely sad and equally terrifying.

  36. Steven Jones is a fraud. When buildings collapse due to controlled explosion it leaves a pile of debris about one sixth the height of the building. In the case of the twin towers there were no such piles, just masses of dust that we all saw on the surrounding streets and on people's faces and bodies. What brought down those buildings was in fact something that most people would find too fantastic to believe, namely some kind of zero point energy weapon which altered the molecular structure of material and caused everything to turn to dust. Think about it, where were the desks and computers and all the rest of the familiar office furniture we would expect to find piled up after such a building collapse? Where were the massive blocks of concrete and steel? There was nothing, just dust! Take a look again at footage of the collapses and you will see parts of the buildings disintegrating before your eyes. Once you know what you are looking at it becomes quite clear that something quite extraordinary is happening. Steven Jones puts forward the theory of thermite of distract our collective attention from the real story: energy that should be used to resolve the environmental crisis and free humanity from fossil fuel dependance, being used to frighten us into submission and make us even more dependent on the forces like big oil and nuclear power that control this planet.

    Jones was behind the rubbishing of the work of Pons and Fleicshman and their claim to have succeeded in making cold fusion work at the end of the eighties. Jones leaked their work to the press before they were given a chance to submit it to peer review and so they were badly viewed by the scientific world. He knew what he was doing then and he knows what he is doing know. Google the work of Dr Judy Wood to find out what really happened to those towers.

    1. Sorry. But that's not true. There are a variety of ways to bring down buildings. Some huge smoke stacks are brought down in sections. Most building are brought down to a pile of rubble.

      No steel structures, such as the Twin Towers have not ever been brought down by fire or a collision. Both towers fell exactly the same.

      Not possible!

      Sorry rafjaf but you're not at all correct.

      Then there's Building 7. Absolutely not possible!

      One must be a simpleton to not understand what happened.

    2. Well, I have listened to this story and others and my conclusion is that Steven Jones is no fraud.

      The real fraud committed here was that of the US Government. To condemn this physicist because of his investigations into the collapse of the three steel structured buildings is to throw up a red flag of something being dearly wrong and the powers that be have some very damning secrets they are wanting to hide.

      Otherwise, if the whole truth was to be examined by a variety of scientists this would be welcomed by the government.

      Obviously, the USA is hiding a lot here. And they're afraid of others investigating this collapse.

  37. I am not qualified (and I suspect neither are most of the others commenting here) to properly judge the value of Jones' work on its merits. Many who are qualified, however, have used very strong language in calling his work on this matter into question. It is also telling that Jones has published his papers either in self-created journals like the Journal of 9/11 Studies or in the U.A.E. based Bentham open journals, rather than in established journals with a record of rigorous peer review. None of this is proof that Jones is peddling hogwash, but it should throw up serious red flags for anyone who follows science.

    1. Well I don't, with all due respect, only look at one set of evidence or one video.

      Simply put, by all the evidence, that these buildings had to have been brought down otherwise.

      Too, many people watch too many Hollywood movies where the impossible is made to look real in film. People just do not look firther than what seems obvious.

    2. Don't accept arguments based on authority. Read the papers and judge for yourself. These scientific papers tell you how to test the evidence for yourself and see if you get the same results. You may not have access to dust from the collapses, but there are many other arguments you can test for yourself. It's science.

  38. Its so nice to see all of you pseudo-experts pontificating...

    1. It is because we are all members of the Church of the Sub-Genius!

    2. By the looks of that handle, "Andrea Darling", it probably took you at least 20, minutes to write that one liner.

    3. haha i know a whole family of people with the last name "Darling" :P

    4. ...and it's so nice to see you have nothing to offer.

  39. After watching this, I thought more deeply about some conspiracy articles on the net.
    It seems that the conservative religious fringe are spinning information to make it seem as if global warming, caused by human supremacy ideology,
    is a plan cooked up by the secretive ruling elites. Apparently climate change has not been
    caused by the collective lot of humanity since the industrial revolution. No, climate change has been caused by the secret, evil, hidden, mysterious hand from blood
    lines of antiquity who are controlling the weather. In truth, chemtrails are most likely being used because scientists are desperate to control the heating of our planet, which was caused by greed and prodigious, careless overpopulation and widespread ignorance and apathy. Nuclear energy is now being espoused by Lovelock and Monbiot because they believe it is better than the carbon-intensive coal industry. This reflects how desperate scientists consider our global warming situation. I disagree with their logic, but Monbiot now stands accused of being a globalist. This documentary shows how easily manipulated we can be from false information, or by information that has truth at its center, but is distorted
    through an hy. poth. e. sis. with no merit, nor study.

    1. Yes, its difficult sometimes to separate conspiracy theories from 'conspiracy theories'.
      By this I mean, which is the true conspiracy here?

      The conspiracy by your government. A government thick with conspiracy theories; FBI theories, the CIA, DEA NSA, and on and on.

      Or the conspiracy theories of individuals losing out because they have looked at the problem in ways not liked by your government.

      Well, I'm sorry but your government is very prone to lying and the hiding of facts and pertinent information. If you trust your government then perhaps you'd better figure out why.

      Just lately we've had two whistle blowers (Manning and Snowden) who have proved many lies by your government. Whatever you think of their display of the facts the reality is that they have exposed a lot of secrets that are relevant to 'truth in government' and the lack thereof in your government.

      Sadly, too many people still hide from the boogy-man and pull the covers over their heads rather than being brave enough to face down their imagination.

    2. you know, you are correct danhunt, just recently my eyes have opened up to new information. It seems the more one reads, especially from a wide variety of sources, one can begin to see different strategies at play. Thanks for your intelligent and cordial response. Too often people forget the basics of effective exchange in sharing useful information.

    3. As a scientist, I keep judging the evidence and its quality against the different hypotheses. Sometimes, I must drop a whole line of evidence as wrong and re-evaluate the descriptive power of the different hypotheses. It requires constant modification and constant testing. Because I am not taking an absolute position and selecting the evidence that supports it, I am doing science, not politics. Political arguments can bury the careful scientific arguments because they are, after all, political.

  40. How come @Achems is nowhere to be found on this thread or @WTC7?

    @Pysmythe:disqus , i'm off to bed but I may get a chance to read your article tomorrow although we will be having an other family diner. Between work and guests i get little time on TDF.
    Tonight i was giving my dad a computer course, my mom will be next when i find the time.

    1. Don't worry, I am here, I follow all threads. Didn't know that you missed me, lol.

    2. I was curious as to why you didn't comment on the 911 discussion.
      Missing you?....of course you are one of my fav....one of many though.

  41. There are two things that I bother me about Professor Jones's approach.

    First, he says that this is the first time in history steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. He left out one important detail. Two of the buildings received massive damage due to plane crashes and the third had a hole in its side that covered close to twenty stories. This changes the parameters of the conditions he set. To be accurate he has to include that the structures could have been compromised structurally and was a major factor in the collapse along with the fires. These two factors must both be considered as causes for the collapses. The Bankers Trust building was also damaged from falling debris from tower two and had a gaping hole in it covering close to fifteen floors. It did not catch fire and did not collapse. In the spirit of accuracy and honesty these are facts he should include.

    The other is that when he believes he has discovered what he believes to be thermite he does not follow this up by attempting to find alternate ways in which aluminium and iron oxides could have been present in the dust. Thermite has many compositions and the compounds used are quite common in every day use. He has to show that what he found could only be there as an explosive and that there are no other ways for this to be present other than an explosive. He doesn't do this and that is a failure in scientific investigation. If there is an alternative reason for the presence of these chips then his ideas lose validity. He may even be correct in his conclusions but he has to join this with other evidence to present a complete and irrefutable case.

    To add, his structural analysis of the collapse is weak. Harry Nutzack, in this comment section, has spoken a great deal more eloquently on this and other subjects than has Professor Jones. This should not happen if he wants to makes a strong case in his favour.

    1. I agree and once more enjoy reading your intelligent analysis of the documentary, thanks. I think most of what you say is completely accurate.

      I should say that I'm undecided on the whole 9/11 thing, there are many things that are questionable from both sides of the argument.

      One thing though, with the iron spheres they found as well, they contained aluminum as well as iron. Which would indicate they were formed/melted with aluminum present, indicating thermate/mite (doesn't one have extra sulfa added? the military version?). One possible counter to that, is the aluminum from the planes themselves could account possibly for extra aluminum, I don't know. It would be interesting if some dust that was only from building 7 could be found and tested if there is also aluminum in any spheres and red flakes, probably indicating thermate/mite.
      My feeling is building 7 itself is very suss.

    2. Thanks. There is one other thing that I didn't mention in my earlier post. Professor Jones states that we have to stop trusting the government. He cannot draw conclusions based on a lack of trust. He is a scientist and the facts should be the determining factor in any conclusion drawn. He cannot fill in the blanks of his case by saying that past misdeeds and corruptions should seal the deal. It is a statement emotionally given and has no place in a scientific discourse. A scientist does not root for an outcome. He studies all the available data and draws conclusions from that. His statement about trust only draws the viewer from the world of facts and evidence to one of opinion. Opinion is what drives bar room analysis and not worthy of a physics professor.

      Building seven's collapse and the suspicions surrounding it can be attributed to all the internet conspiracy sites and videos floating about. It is harder to find sites that show a different aspect of the collapse. I will add another comment that will direct you to a couple of these sites. There is an obvious bias on these sites but it does give a pictures and videos that are never seen on conspiracy sites. It gives the issue a little balance.

    3. "The other is that when he believes he has discovered what he believes to be thermite he does not follow this up by attempting to find alternate ways in which aluminium and iron oxides could have been present in the dust. Thermite has many compositions and the compounds used are quite common in every day use."

      Please elaborate on this point further. I have yet to read Jones's paper on the subject, hopefully as an engineer I will grasp the atomic theory he uses in his exposition. I plan to read it in the near future. What other possible combinations of compounds can produce such an chemical signature?

      Harry Nutzack = Hairy Nutsack, pretty juvenile and less than mature for a real discussion of any topic at this level. I read his plagiarized points, but he has no concept on what civil engineers currently face in this new age of 21st century terrorism. Alberti, Sullivan and Palladio are beyond his grasp. If you have any insight on possible and plausible chemical make ups, please feel free to state them. It could save plenty of time on an alternate theory of structural metal fatigue with regard to the compound richterite - Na(CaNa)(Mg, Fe++)5(Si8O22)(OH)2

      Thank you.

    4. I am not an engineer. The reason I bring this up is this. I worked in a scrap yard for eleven years. We used oxygen acetylene torches to cut steel and to clean aluminium and aluminium alloys. Theses were industrial and household items which had to be rid of any contaminating materials to prepare for recycling. Some of the reactions to the flame of the torches when applied to some of the metals was astonishing, especially the aluminium alloys. We would set them aside as they would be too volatile to clean in the standard manner. There were also some steel alloys that would have weird sparkling reactions that would not be expected when cutting steel. These reactions happened more often than one would think. They talked of an explosive reaction of the chips and from experience I can attest that there are aluminium alloys that are quite reactive and these are used everyday. There are also aluminized steel products available. Also, are the windows made of aluminium and how would this aluminium react with some of the steel alloys that are found in some of the office furniture, for example. Could these account for what he found?

      It would seem that there would still be places in Manhatten where this residue could be found. Would that not be a way to match these samples with the samples that these two individuals brought him? Not saying they're lying but corroboration would really solidify a case for explosives and tighten the claim that this was indeed material gathered that day. Transversely, this material could not have contaminated every corner of the city. He wants to analyse material from before the crashes and with a little thought he should be able to find such material. He seems to suggest that it isn't possible.

      As for painting thermite inside the building, I don't see how this would work. The steel is covered with fire retardant and out of sight as they are covered over with drywall so the tenants could have attractive office space. I have never, in my years in the scrapyard, seen steel girders that received fresh coats of paint periodically, unless exposed. Who has steel girders in the middle of their office? Painting thermite on drywall would be ineffective as the thermite would be burnt out before affecting any structural steel. These are questions I have that have never been addressed.

    5. You may have not known it, but asbestos is key here. Hence my previous post. I agree with you on the source of the tested material. It is hard to say what other compounds may have possibly contaminated the samples. Richterite formulates naturally and is used in asbestos. It and other amphiboles can have similar color and chip configurations, but the spheres have me puzzled. Not that I have never seen a reaction that cause spheres to form or seen naturally forming spheres. The intensity of heat and unknown pressures of the event really does make the study difficult to say the least. As you mentioned, a reference sample of original pre event material would be desired. My belief is if someone could find a building that was built around the same time frame using the same steel formulation, it may help. I know there is a mill on record for WTC.

      As far as possible demolition, that is tricky. The asbestos removal campaign in the Towers was ongoing. As a lease expired those floor areas were addressed and upgraded to safer retardant materials. Painted thermite is interesting, but I have really no knowledge of the how many variants of the substance exists. One would think thermite would have some time limitation of effectiveness in a painted form. Though some forms of grease and Vaseline are good fire starters and these are gels. Would painted thermite be a gel? And therefore, sooner or later wouldn't this substance become apparent either by smell, or by chance, some drywall becoming unflattering in appearance, then noticed by new tenants who take over the floor. Very, very strange indeed.

      Thank you for your feedback.

    6. No, these buildings were not massively damaged. They were damaged, each of them on one side. It's the government that insists upon the fire concept.

      If the damage had been significant then the buildings' weights above the damage would have made the top of each building fall over sideways.

      Jack, please, look at other fires and look at Building 7 with some sort of intelligence. Building 7 could never have collapsed. Take a looh at the structure. Boy, you guys and you lack of knowledge is just so much a problem here. Or you're liars.

      Actually, its the government that has ignored the whole issue of cause and effect here. They're the ones that cleaned up with vicious speed and ecluded proper care in dissembling the events. It was a rush clean up and it was a rush clean up used as a coverup of any facts that could be gleaned.

    7. I don't think that your claim that I lack knowledge has any merit unless you have the impeccable credentials that can demonstrate exactly where I have failed in my assessment. Also, calling me a liar is a cheap and non-productive way to carry on an adult conversation.

      Google WTC 7 damage. There are many sites that will show just how much damage was caused to this building when the twin towers collapsed. It was extensive and fire fighters feared an imminent collapse due to the buckling of the exterior of the side of the building facing the twin towers. This was hours before WTC 7 came down. If professor Jones wants to be accurate, then he must include the damage as well as the fire. That would be professional integrity. This does not mean that the government wasn't involved. That is an accusation that cannot be made by how the buildings fell. That accusation comes from a detailed look at how explosives were planted, what type of explosives were used, who planted them, how it was done without anyone noticing, the paper trail of huge purchases of explosives and materials, who organized this project and more. None of which is forthcoming.

      They cleaned up the mess because there was ample evidence to show who the hijackers were. It is journalism 101 and any first year journalist would have this information before the day was out. Official investigators would have it even quicker. When the second plane hit everyone knew it was intentional. Investigators had only to listen to the conversations of stewardess Betty Ong and Madeline Sweeney to find out the description of the hijackers and even where they sat. It fell together quickly, partially because they didn't care if their identity was found out.

      Last, watch closely at how the towers collapsed. The supports weakened and the top of the building started to lean a little. Then the supports failed and the top of the building fell down, not sideways, because that's what gravity dictates. Also, there were no series of explosions, typical of controlled demolitions, seconds before any of the collapses.

      Basically, any evidence of government involvement is anecdotal and very subjective and lacks in specifics.

    8. "If the damage had been significant then the buildings' weights above the damage would have made the top of each building fall over sideways."

      This displays a mind boggling ignorance of basic structural engineering. It assumes buildings are designed as strong on a diagonal plane as they are on the vertical plane. LOL.

  42. to you who believe everything you read is true is false the cia makes up the stories that many of us read about when we read about any war , please watch ALTERNITVE VIEWS on line its old but its great history it ran from 1978 to i think 1995 great stories and info , that on some of them will open your eyes

  43. Boston is same bs. Im Canadian and alot of ppl here know what is going on and Justin does too

    1. yeah...people were claiming that the boston bombings were a conspiracy before anyone knew what had actually happened...The rush of crazy ignorant videos and pictures "proving" something was not as it seemed would have been hilarious is they weren't so disgustingly disrespectful to the people suffering in them.
      Christ, at least have the decency to wait until the people hurt in the explosion have stopped bleeding before you try weaving your fantasy into their suffering!

  44. ...& don't forget that the nist report is also only a hypothesis!

  45. and this use of 'twoofers' is a dialectic mis-charachterisation of weak argumentation,all he's doing is raising valid doubt of the official outlet as it reaks of bad investigative work...full of left out information & no full support of the heads in charge,which no one can deny...if they can they haven't used a sceptical approach to the gaping holes which over ride
    the information which fill that report....but each to their own!

  46. One of (if not THE) most matter-of-fact and compelling 9/11 truth documentaries, because it deals with absolute fundamentals. The science. Black and white. It cannot be argued with. Unequivocally WTCs 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed (nay pulverised) by way of controlled demolition.

    1. ahem...when one watches the FULL video of building 7 collapsing, you can see that the penthouse on the very top of the building collapses several minutes before the rest of the building falls. This is because the FIRES in building 7 practically hollowed it out, what you can see is the penthouse collapsing into an empty shell of a building which soon collapses in it's entirety.
      when you hear about people talking about 'pulling' wtc 7 this is the reason they talk about doing it

      There is NO EVIDENCE of explosives anywhere near the WTC.
      Fot the ammount of Thermite needed to bring down the WTC, you'd have head the explosions for miles away (because there would have been a string of explosions, not just one like what actually happened when each plane crashed).

  47. The trouble with these films is that most people watching (like me) have no better knowledge of science, building, demolition or skyscraper/aeroplane combos than a high school kid. How are we supposed to make any sensible judgement on whether this is true or not? All I have is either my general mistrust of people in power or a gut feeling that people just aren't that wicked. And hopefully a dash of common sense. Not really enough is it?! For all I know nano thermite might make itself from the debris. :)

    1. In that case, the best policy is to fall back to occums raisor: the simple obvious answer is usually correct. the "truthers" have hatched a "conspiracy" that would require the participation of THOUSANDS of people, from expert engineers, to laborers, to the folks that mop floors in sky scrapers at night, and every class of worker in between. yet after a decade, not a peep from a conspirator. as a former criminal who has participated in more than a couple of conspiracies, i can assure you that is IMPOSSIBLE. when someone can show me purchase orders for THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES that have no "end use", the permits that show the transportation of those explosives to anywhere near NYC, the purchase orders for the hundreds of demo bits, the purchase orders for the thousands of "quickie saw" blades that would be required, the rental or other purchase of the various compressors, demo hammers, hydraulic nippers and power heads, the time sheets for the labor involved, and all the other logistical nightmares that leave a paper trail in either construction or demolition, then i will lend SOME credence to "truthers". blowing smokerings from your anal vent may be impressive to watch, but offers NO proof. there would be "visitor log" entries for EVERY conspirator, for EVERY visit to those buildings "after hours". there would be accumulated parking tickets for the various workers who "missed dropping the quarter". there would be maintenance folks with a "grudge" moaning about vaccing dust from the carpeting. there would be dumpster rentals, authorizations for placement, and releases to remove. there would be "dock logs" for every truck that unloaded or loaded anything involved in the project. NO such proof is even considered by the "truthers", yet it is the ONLY method to demonstrate such a project. what they claim would require millions of man hours, several tractor trailer loads of gear, hundreds of dumpsters to dispose of the debris, and tons of "consumables". if there was an HONEST effort to prove this "conspiracy", those records would be shown FIRST, then such inane blather as "nano thermite" would be approached.

    2. Why such an offensive handle? But I digress. I have read your other posts in the thread. Insult after insult, including the claim you actually build. Okay you say so. What engineering degree do you possess?

      Hairy you have stated many things in the thread here, but any one familiar with demolition, as many architectural engineers and general contractors in large building construction are, know large amounts of high explosives are generally not used in great amounts. Also that cutter charges are used, and small amounts are only necessary. There are various forms of cutter charges and these options have been the choice of demolition companies for decades, simply because of control use, consistent effect, and stability. Yes a certain matter of advanced prep is required, but that is to the benefit using less material for the controlled effect.

      I admit I have not watched this video yet, though I have been following the group Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. Their goal is not to find a "conspiracy", but solutions. The fact of the matter is the Twin Towers failed as designed. And the NIST reports (plural) on WTC 2001 have been changed to follow a predetermined hypothesis. And furthermore, the NIST reports continually are found as factually unsound and flawed by many in the commercial building industry.

      When you say "i*iots", rest assured that the individuals you call "i*iots" who disagree with NIST, have been designing modern Skyscrapers for decades. The Twin Towers were designed by Minoru Yamasaki and Leslie Earl Robinson, both considered leaders and mentors in the industry. These "i*iots" follow principles and strategies perfected by these gentlemen.

      When are other buildings going to fall?

      That is the major concern, since the WTC was designed to handle a fully loaded, fully fueled 707's. Evidence clearly depicts the fires in the first plane strike were smoldering before the second plane even hit. That is the issue.

      Why the metal fatigue? The whole inner column matrix could withstand the impact and a raging fire would have never reached the core matrix. These are puzzling issues and NIST is obviously guessing. After seven reports you would think they would get it right! And I agree as most, how can one anticipated a 100000 liter Molotov cocktail. Yet if you build, you must admit, maybe you have seen 7 reports before, but 7 from the same agency? NIST is clueless and arguments at MIT continue till this day.

      In regards to Steven Jones, he did not reach his position at BYU, yes BYU, because he was an i*iot. I imagine he reached it through hard work and integrity. You do not work at Lawrence and earn a PhD at Stanford because you're an i*iot. You may says his results must be inaccurate, but when a person invents a forensic process that has been vetted for decades world-wide, pre-9-11, he has obviously contributed to society, for the benefit of the mankind.

      And for someone such as myself, who believes in the scientific method also feels yes, it hard to believe that so many others, of somewhat equal stature, could be wrong. What is even more horrifying is possibility that there are those who choose to be deliberately wrong for financial gain. Yes financial gain. But why is that so hard to believe? Banks are laundering money for drug cartels and writing up liar loans. Bad people are bad people and are found in every profession. What makes NIST any different?

      Steven Jones has shown nothing but an extraordinary level of integrity at every turn of fate, something which would be expected by any current or former BYU professor.

      Integrity is not something gained by insults. It is gained by good actions and human compassion.

      By the way, Ockham lived at a time where there wasn't TNT as we know it, Greek Fire maybe; yet despite the use of the Razor principles, it can be used inappropriately and is over and over again. If Jones is correct, and there is residue from a high controlled material such as Thermate, what does that tell you? What is the simple and obvious answer?

      As far as I am concerned, conspiracy is for the Frank Church Committee. Good luck to us all if Jones is correct.

    3. 10 paragraphs of verbose ad hominum, "they're much smarter than you", and citing example of unrelated misconduct. you offer NO genuine critique of my points. IF my points are so erroneous, please, feel free to actually debunk them. my level of education is completely immaterial. if my points are valid, they stand on their merit, whether i am a university professor or a busboy at a golden corral buffet. if they are invalid, they fall before facts on their own merit, irregardless of my education level. in short, either show my errors through demonstrable fact, or get on the "short bus" of over opinionated, unsupported hype and fantasy. "put up or shut up" is the phrase that springs to mind. my guess is the blowing of smoke rings will continue

    4. Interesting perspective on my comment, Hairy. I watch the video after my post. And yes I feel the need to touch the door before opening it when it comes to fiery subjects. I didn't know that other scientists and forensic professionals chose to help Mr. Jones and continue to do so.

      Yet in a nut sack, your response is troubling. I never said the "idiots" were smarter than you. How would I know? I just pointed out the obvious that many of names involved are known world-wide in various fields.

      So you have no formal education in civil engineering? Well you gave the impression that you did. And your level of education and experience is something you yourself offered.

      And so another words, in your own admission, you don't know enough about civil engineer. Yet you pretend as though you did in previous posts. That's a pretty blatant error of fact.

      My God man, 3000 individuals lost their lives because the Twin Towers were badly design. This has been the basic summation of the NIST reports. But obviously you would never know because you have never bothered to read the reports. And furthermore, this is why many commercial builders are seeking further answers; regardless of the catalyst, we don't ever want to see a tragedy of this magnitude ever, ever again. And that was my point. I was not trying to debunk points that you personally pretend as your own. Those points have been made over and over again. And to speak of unsupported hype; 3000 people died and more die every year as a result of the clean up. That is not hype. It's fact!

      I don't pretend to have the answers. Neither should you. Go grab some Lego's and leave civil engineering to the real professionals. Forget about 9-11, you have debunked yourself as a fraud. Small one no doubt, but still a fraud.

      Pretty sad. I doubt if you know how many classical laws of motion there are or what they are. And I doubt that you even care. Oh well, you can always pretend.

    5. i believe the technical term for what he's doing is "Gish gallop."

    6. I'm not a truther, just fed up with the movement rolling out these ever more technical, nitpicking arguments that the average person has no way of countering. As you said, if this was an inside job they'd have left footprints in the snow so big even Sasquatch would panic ;)

    7. i don't think he was accusing you of being a truther, i certainly didn't read it that way.

    8. Me either, just wanted to make sure so he didn't have to spend time convincing me otherwise :)

    9. I got as far as you asking for purchase orders for explosives and permits for transporting them to the towers then skipped the rest.
      I don't pretend to know what happened because obviously i dont.
      But come on mate, asking for documents to prove they bought and transported explosives to the towers is crazy to use in an argument for the official story. no?

  48. The sad reality is that we been lied to so much by the establishment that even when we are given the truth for any event at any scale we have to make a leap of faith that this time we havent been lied to. We created this system and we have to live with it. We put people in power who lie to us constantly and then act shocked when people question their versions of facts. We believe people who have no credibility because the truth doesn't satisfy our logic, we believe the illogical when people who we believe have credibility lie to us. The truth IS out there, but the lies are the unending minefield you must cross to get to it. In that journey, you might find that the truth was right where you started.

    1. My kids would lie to me all the time. "Did you brush you teeth?" "Yup." But the toothbrush would be bone-dry. Does this mean they always lied? Of course not. You investigate and then combine facts gathered and common sense to arrive at a conclusion. The American government has lied but that doesn't mean every thing they say is a lie. They are human and they will act as humans. A past lie is irrelevant. What matters is the facts of the case at hand and whether they paint a complete picture that makes sense. As it stands, the conspiracy theories have too many holes in them to taken as fact.

      The most incredible aspect that CT expect us to believe is that thousands of liars...liars being unethical...consistently retell their lies and never turn on each other. There are no insiders with hero complexes. Not one of these unethical insiders would use their knowledge for personal gain. Too many liars for this inside job to work.

    2. How many Presidents/Representatives/Mayors/Etc. have lied to get elected? How many promises have gone unfulfilled? That's my point. I'm not saying the events of 9/11 we're lies, I'm saying after being lied to so many times you begin to question EVERYTHING. Obama's entire campaign was based on change... clearly NOTHING has changed. At least, not for the better!

    3. How many have lied to get elected? I don't know. I would bet every politician has lied at one time or another. So have I...and you and your parents, spouse, neighbour, business associates, friends...anyone either one of us could name has lied. It's human nature. Why single out the politician and pretend that we stand on a higher plain of morality because we chose not to be politicians? We're no better and we would fall into the same patterns if we were in their position.

      When one automatically assumes a lie one starts to look for the lie. That is not the way to understanding or knowledge. It is the way to anger, bias, recrimination and ultimately, a skewed version of reality. An understanding of the reality of any situation comes from gathering all the information available and from that piecing together the most likely scenario that comes closest to the truth. There will be the strange and inexplicable, the things that give you pause, but those little things should never become the nexus of any news story. Too many people allow the little issues become the big picture and then lose the big picture over the details. I see a lot of this when I watch 9/11 conspiracy videos and when I read the comment sections of these videos.

    4. Your comparison is very unfair. Sure I have lied, everyone lies, but you're not discriminating the SCOPE of the lie. If I lied to you and told you give me 1,000$ of your hard earned money with the promise of giving it back in a week because I needed it for some very important cause and then blew it on hookers and never gave it back, I think you would label me untrustworthy and basically never trust me again, with anything.

      Lying is human nature, sure, but once you're revealed as a liar you stop being credible, even when you tell the truth. I'm clearly a proponent of scientific facts, and yes some theories sound insane, but I can easily empathize with WHY people dont trust the establishment!

    5. I don't see how it is unfair. Politicians are not a different species. They are not genetically altered to lie. They are people, like us. They are in a position where their decisions can impact our lives more so than the average person's decisions. However, the actions of one politician has no bearing on what another politician is doing or believes in.

      If a person starts out thinking that everything is a lie, that person has a tendency not to look for the facts. He starts to to look for flaws that support his insistence that all is perverse and tends to ignore facts that do not validate his views. It is the method of research most common on conspiracy theory sites and literature.

    6. Members of the United States Government lied about the 2001 attacks. Condoleeza Rice claiming that no one foresaw the kamikaze-style use of airliners is one example. No reasonable person could equate this with kids lying about brushing their teeth. The 2001 attacks were linked to Saddam Hussein numerous times by US officials. More lies, specifically related to the 2001 attacks. The attacks have been used as justification for economic, military and judicial policies that have affected the lives of billions of people. There are vast amounts of information available that contradict the official narrative of the attacks, and yet, counterintuitively, you are stating that 'conspiracy theories" have too many holes in them as though in contrast to the integrity of the official nonsense. Bizarre.

    7. People lie for all kinds of reasons. Rice is just as likely making excuses for government incompetence concerning those attacks. All the political and military decisions made the result of an opportunistic group of people in the Bush administration. Bin Laden attacks and G. Bush uses it to advance all his pet political agendas. It does not prove that he planned the attacks.

      To prove it you have to have direct evidence. Looking for and finding conflicting interviews and bizarre political moves after the fact is not evidence. It may cause one to go "hmmm" but it proves nothing. There is no direct evidence that proves wrong doing by the government that day. Any thing that I have ever seen advanced as proof of Bush culpability would not get him one day in jail.

    8. Your statement is vague to the point of being meaningless. Direct evidence of wrongdoing by the government? As in congress approving a psy-op involving terrorists to attack US citizens? Nobody is suggesting that. The issue is whether or not elements of the US Government, US military and US intelligence, and US intelligence assets perpetrated the acts. The US has been using Islamists as assets since Operation Typhoon. The Bin Laden apparatus was being used in the former Yugoslavia at least as late as 1999. So if the alleged 19 carried out the attack, and the impacts and fires brought down the buildings, then the perpetrators are linked to US intelligence. At least some of the 19 got visas out of Jeddah despite grave misgivings on the part of consular staff.
      The idea of Bush being responsible for a massive psy-op involving complex intelligence relationships is nonsensical and is not a serious proposal. It ranks with your toothbrushing analogy. You don't know why Rice lied, or why both Congrssional and Senate reports found that the Bush administration falsely created the impression that the attacks were linked to Iraq. What is known is that the operation was a psy-op, no matter who carried it out. So who benefitted, the alleged cabal of jihadists striving for the new Caliphate, or the Western elites who own the economic apparatus represented by NATO?

    9. Benefiting from an incident is not proof of guilt, although it could be an indicator of guilt. This cabal of jihadists may have thought that their actions would be very beneficial to their cause. They are religious fanatics, products of an irrational belief system. Religious fundamentalists will do almost anything to further or justify their cause. Look at those who continue to go to faith healers, even after that healer has been exposed as a fraud (Popoff, for example). Muslim fundamentalists want to establish an Islamist state that includes the entire world. Everyone of us must be Muslim, including you, and must adhere to Sharia Law. That is the goal of the fundamentalist Muslim and this has been well established by their own rhetoric. The American government is, without a doubt, a corrupt entity. However, this does not mean that everyone else is innocent. Do not let your justifiable distrust of American politics blind you to other dangers just as menacing. I do not want to see my grandchildren forced to go to Mosque because my hatred of the United States did not allow me to see any other dangers in the world.

      I believe that the direct evidence points to a Muslim terrorist action on 9/11. That doesn't mean I think that the Americans are now the good guys no matter what. It means that I believe that there are more than just the one danger in the world and we had better be prepared to consider all the dangers and not just the one.

    10. Fundamentalist muslims have been used as assets by Western intelligence as far back as the overthrow of Sukarno in 1965. Western intelligence has fostered radical Islam as an instrument of policy in Afghanistan, Chechnya and the former Yugoslavia. So these muslims that you claim want to force us all into Islam have a lengthy history of being US intelligence assets. The alleged 2001 attackers, their phantom boss included, fit this profile. So again, if you accept the official account of the attacks and buildings collapses, the perpetrators seem to fit the profile of US intelligence assets. Which makes your insinuation that it's counterintuitive to doubt the official narrative curious indeed.

    11. Muslim groups used the U.S. in their battles, also. They had their own agendas that for a time matched American goals. However, after conflicts in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia were over, they had no further use for them. They resented American support of Israel and Bin Laden was outraged that Americans had troops of holy Arabian soil. Just as the Soviets were allies of Americans in WW2 and became bitter enemies after the war, Muslim extremists turned on the United States. They used each other and Bin Laden turned when it suited his agenda.

    12. I have seen no evidence that the Muslim US proxies ever became anything else. You ignored the question as to who benefitted from the 2001 psy-op. Clearly the attacks gave a green light to a massive escalation of the US policy of creating an "arc of crisis" throughout the Islamic territory of the Eurasian land mass. So a crime was committed, and the elites who dominate the US Imperium have benefitted tremendously. The Global War on Terror (TM) has been great for the advancement of the US/NATO policy of encircling China and Russia, not so great for the new Caliphate.
      So from the top:
      1. US assets committed the attacks.
      2. These assets were cleared to enter the US with assistance from US intelligence.
      3. The attacks furthered US geostrategic policy.
      Muslim groups used the US? The US wanted Sukarno gone, so the CIA in concert with political Islam and the Indonesian military got rid of him and a million or so Indonesian citizens. Operation Typhoon was launched prior to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and it was entirely the brainchild of Western Intelligence. The Yugoslav war was entirely the creation of the West, dating back to the 1984 NSDD 133, and they used the Bosnian muslims and later the Albanian muslims, to fulfill their aim. The US-fostered radicalization of the Chechens likewise was in the furthrance of US policy. The US owns Jundallah, which is being used to destablize Iran. Radical Islam works for Uncle Sam, and I have seen no evidence that the 2001 attacks should be on anybody else's resume.

    13. If I believed that those Muslims from Indonesia, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, the Philippines, Palestine and others do not have the brains, initiative, courage and faith in a fanatical religious cause then I would agree with you. However, I do not see the weak minded Muslim yes men that you do. I see men with their own agendas, willing to do what it takes to fight any real or perceived threat to their religious beliefs.
      Yes, there are those that benefited from those attacks. That does not mean that Muslim fanatics do not hate the United States. It is a complex weave of espionage directed in many directions by a myriad of special interest groups. To say that everything is directed by the United States and no one else is myopic and maybe even a little self serving on your part.
      You still have not shown one solid piece of evidence that shows how special American interests are at fault in those attacks. Everything you say is indirect and interpretive. Proof that the United States helped in the overthrow of Sukarno has nothing to do with the Twin Towers. It is a tenuous leap of logic as are your other allegations, as true as they may be. The proof lies in the specifics of that case, not anywhere else.

    14. Nice try. You set up that strawman, and knocked him out like Mike Tyson! I haven't said anything about weak-minded Muslims. I haven't said that everything is directed by the United States. I stated, numerous times now, that the alleged 911 hijackers were US intelligence assets. Some had fought in Yugoslavia, where of course the US was using the networks used in Typhoon, from Saudi funding to international recruitment, and some had fought in Chechnya, where again, US intelligence has fostered radicalism to destabilize Russia. So, in the very specific instance of the 2001 attacks, the events furthered US policy,and the alleged perps were US assets.

  49. Larry Silverstein, owner of the Trade Center, which included building 7, came right out and said in an interview that a decision was made to "pull" building 7, it didn't just collapse on it's own. It takes time to set up a "pull". Therefore taking down building 7 was planned in advance. What does that tell you?

    1. yes. Pulling a building is the process of demolishing a dangerous building so that it can pose no more threat to life.

      or were you taking what was said out of context on purpose?

    2. How did they "pull it" on such short notice? Looked pretty easy!

    3. well obviously they didn't have the chance because it fell of it's own accord, on account of the fire damage within the building

    4. hmmm...

  50. but .... the buildings were hit with a 335 thousand lb aircraft with over 30 thousand lbs of fuel while they were accelerating past 429 mph according to an MIT study. Intentional demolition is irrelevant since the hijacking was the impetus leading to war by the Bush administration.

  51. No need not to be prosecuting Cheney and George Jr. right now. They are war criminals for creating a war against an i*iot and his innocent victims. No need to prove this story slippery complex mess of a conspiracy.

    Cheney and Bush clearly lied. Whistle blowers abound. Not so in the case of the hypothesis presented here.

  52. Wow, whether this guy is right or wrong, this documentary highlights just how infuriatingly useless the media is.

    1. he isn't right. But you'r point still stands true! Not enough has been done by the media to correct all the glaring misconceptions. Conspiracy theories are given a far bigger voice than they deserve (thanks ironicly enough to their popularity...Conspiracy theorists are very easy to market to and the media knows that)

    2. Why do you dismiss Dr. Jones so flippantly? Are you a physicist? Get back to us all after you have your data compiled.

    3. Jones also believed that Jesus Christ visited America, And said that his work was peer reviewed when in fact it wasn't, it was privately published...A man of his education knows the difference between what's peer reviewed or not, so we can say with some confidence that he purposefully lied to Journal editors that republished his findings and had their reputations and thus their careers ended as a result.
      He also appears to have founded a string of truther groups...It's a pity he didn't spend as much time studying the subject of his critics rebuttals as he did garnering support for various truther themed political movements (doesn't sound dodgy at all does it)

  53. As a guy who has spent a few decades having things fall, trying to keep things from falling, and rebuilding what has already fallen, all I can say is the "Truthers" are the largest pack of "educated idiots" on this planet.
    WTCs 1, 2, and 7 ALL collapsed for no other reason than those aircraft impacts. The "mechanisms" that doomed those 3 structures are VERY easily understood, though it requires a fairly broad cross section of interest, and passing knowledge of some basics of the unique structures that were the "Twin Towers", some of the subtleties of lower manhattan geology, and most of all, the ability to comprehend a VERY complex combustion train. You may well notice the propagation characteristics of muons had little or nothing to do with it.

    That is what cost this "educated idiot" his job. He tried to lend the weight of his professional expertise to the voicing of opinion that has NO real world back up. His complete lack of expertise in any field that would come into play in figuring out the "why" of those buildings succumbing to gravity, his "end run" around peer review, and his listing of his degrees to lend credence to his opinion is no different than those "creation scientists" that do the same, and is no less deserving of professional scorn and "purging from the ranks". Had he just said "Hi, I'm Phil, and I don't buy this", he would have faced no punishment. When he said "I'm Dr X, and it's my considered professional opinion...", he crossed the line. Would you accept the "considered professional opinion" of a proctologist on the quality of a weld bead in a nuclear reactor pressure vessel? Would you accept the "considered professional opinion" of a cardiologist as to what is wrong with the fuel injection system of your car?

    1. Would you consider professional opinion of engineers and non professional opinion of government officials who have not looked, researched, invested most of their time on the field trying to come to a (possible) conclusion...that the whole story is just as we have been told?
      What Jones wants is a REAL investigation....the same as the rest of the world is asking for, including thousands if not millions of Americans.
      Too much has been hidden and even a baker can see that.

    2. What would you consider to be a "real" investigation? Is there anybody who you would be unable to disqualify for being biased?

    3. 1st of many
      Where are the tapes of a plane crashing in the Pentagon?
      With so many cameras pointed towards the Pentagon and it's surroundings, no one should be needed to explain what we can see with our eyes.

    4. Why should there be many cameras pointed AT Pentagon? I am sure that there are many cameras inside, but why outside? And while you may not have seen it, about 100 witness came forward saying that they saw a plane pass very low over the ground and/or hit the Pentagon.

    5. @qQ

      Usually, proponents of alternative theories try to find a hole in the official story. Then they propose that a single error means that the entire official story is a fabrication. I take the same approach to alternative theories. If I find something that is flat-out wrong or deceiving, I do not pursue that source further. I have only so much time and the number of alternative theories on the internet is simply too huge for me to critically read all of them in their entirety.

      As to the video link you posted: First, i do not like videos. They simplify things and are designed to appeal to the same audience which unquestioningly accepts whatever the mainstream media says. Evidence and statements are present very quickly and the viewer has no time to look for corroborative evidence. Therefore, while watching these videos, I tend to use "pause" button very frequently.

      I skipped right into the meat of their argument for an alternative "north" path of the aircraft. First evidence is a claim that the flight-data-recorder (FDR) showed the last recorded altitude as 600 feet about 1 second before the crash. The video makes the claim that descending 600 feet and leveling off in that short time would have been structurally impossible. This argument may have reasonable when the video was filmed. Since, it came to light that the home-made process they used to convert the FDR data into human-readable format ignored the last 4 seconds of flight (due to corrupted parity check bits). Another independent analysis corrected the corruption and then used the FDR manufacturer's software to recover the data. The last recorded altitude was only 4 feet, fitting the official NTSD story.

      This is followed by several interviews. I did not look too deeply into the first one, but the second one caught my attention. This police officer (Chad Brooks) was first interviewed in November 2001, as mentioned in the video (recording is available online). Yet instead of relying on this, the video producers interviewed him again in 2006. In 2001, he said he was sitting in a parked car when he first saw and heard the plane. Then he saw the plane again after he got out of the car and he saw it clip a lamp post and head towards the Pentagon, followed by fireball. In 2006, the way the video interview is cut and edited, implies that he first saw the plane while standing in the parking lot and glancing over his left shoulder. The lamp post is not mentioned. Obviously, one or both of the accounts must be wrong, and/or the video editing is deliberately twisting the interview to fit its theory. The fact that the video producers completely ignored a glaring contradiction between the two interviews tells me that I cannot trust them. Game over. There are dozens of other theories to look at.

    6. im with you man. there is nothing you can say to these people.

      they are the same people that say we didnt go to the moon, or believe sandy hook massacre was a hoax....they are a waste of your time.

    7. lol glad I mentioned the moon!

    8. Yes, they are. And I've already said enough here...

    9. Wow Harry, I'm shocked! You really believe there is nothing to it. I really believe there is much collective evidence for there to be little or no doubt of the opposite. I don't think the moon landings were faked. I don't think there's alien crafts hidden at area 51. I don't jump on conspiracy theories in some hope of gleaning secrets only privy to a few. There is no void in my life that needs filling or questions that I must find answers to. I try not to lead or follow or be influenced into thinking one way or another. I hold and maintain balance in all things as a noble and worthwhile trait...as far as I can. I don't believe in the Venus Project or any kind of Utopian dreamscape, nor do I subscribe to the notion of evil elites and green lizards, hell bent on enslaving the world as their plaything. But this sh*t is in a world of its own and this sh*t just ain't right man! The world is not flat, nor is it the centre of the universe, and those buildings were not brought down the way we are being told.

    10. Very happy to see you back....you always add your bit of sense to the unreasonable.

    11. And here is the difference between you and me. I start from "these building fell down" and I look to see which hypothesis best fits the available data. You start from "these buildings were not brought down the way we are being told" and then selectively look only at evidence that supports that view.

    12. If you weren't quoting me out of context, then I would give you a point for that one. But alas, you are twisting my position of 'where I start from'. Those words I used were on the tail end of a much longer statement, on the subject of what we have been told. Take the vote down and wear it.

    13. Where would you like me to start? "explosions" heard in building 7? sound travels at almost 3 times the speed it moves through air, when it travels through a solid of the density of stone. Those "explosions" so many witnesses claim to have heard were just sound. The collapse of building 7? Negative loading of post and lentle structures causes exactly the modality of "fatigue, failure,collapse" that was observed. The negative loading cause? tympanic plate edge mode waves of vibration. The "sudden, near freefall collapse"? That only happened to the facade, and only from a single angle. Still pictures of the structure from throughout the day chronicle a slow, inexorable, molasses like collapse, where smaller reinforcing structures failed, increasing stresses on broader structures, which then failed in turn. The evidence of this is very non-dramatic, and kind of subtle, so those with no clue what to look for will often miss it. If you look at built in linear, planar surfaces of the structure throughout the day, you see lines become arcs. That,and horizontal displacement of the roof, was what the emergency services expert was examining with the transit immediately before he said "We have to pull it" (it had reached the stage of the arcs changing in realtime, visually perceptibly, which is an ultimate "GTF OUTTA THERE!!" moment). This is also EXACTLY how one should expect concrete/rebar combined with girder structures to fail from stress. That should be enough to stimulate you to investigate 7 with more info, which should provide more insight, so let's move on.

      Let's talk about fire temperatures, fuel sources, and draft (oxygen sources). Your stereotypical "office fire", just from the materials at hand, will reach temperatures in excess of 1200 degrees F, and sustained temps of 1000 F. This fact has been documented through research dozens of times, and can be found (along with some fairly awesome videos of propagation of the blaze) at insurance underwriter websites, with examples from the 50s to the last decade or so. I found it through google searches. These conditions are based on both fuel and draft conditions that can be expected typically, and of a fire allowed to "run it's course" unabated.

      Now, let us consider "potential fuels" that existed in the tangled wreckage of those floors. There is the obvious (furniture, flooring, people, luggage, cargo, jet fuel that survived the impact/explosion), and there are heaps of fuel that many never consider (because they don't know it's flammable). Aluminum is a fuel. I'll repeat that, because THAT is the MAJOR FLAW in the line of bull sold by "truther" profiteers. Aluminum is a VERY high heat, hard to kindle fuel. In case it's news to you, airliners are, for the most part, made of aluminum. There are also parts made of another violently flammable metal, magnesium (though far less by either volume or weight than aluminum). You have ALL seen magnesium burn in a science demo, so i'll assume i have no need to cite the reliability of that fact. To "prove" aluminum's flammability, one need only web search a MSDS for aluminum roof flashing, or one of several citations of the factoid in descriptions of the metal. The "most ideal conditions" for the kindling of aluminum will be found to be "oil soaked fine scraps, as found in machine shops", or exactly the conditions we would expect the aluminum to be in, inside that building (though most of the jet fuel would indeed have been consumed in the impact fireball, commercial jets also have HUGE quantities of lube oil and hydraulic fluids). The kindling point of aluminum, by the way, sits right around 1100 F. Magnesium is a couple of hundred degrees lower, but burns MUCH hotter. So, we have a combustion train of fuels, that, assuming we have a draft that will support the fire, will produce temps that will MELT steel of structural variety, and soften even the most exotic alloys. Now let's examine "draft".

      We all know a fire needs "air", and specifically oxygen, to continue burning. this oxygen must be in excess of that bound up in chemical bonds, or contained in incredibly weak bonds, to support the chemical process of "burning". I'm also fairly certain we have all seen both properly, and poorly made fires. Properly constructed combustion trains catch rapidly, while poorly made ones require at the very least extreme coaxing to eventually become that bed of coals in the BBQ, or the much appreciated camp fire. The vast majority of "poor fires" are due to choking off of oxygen to combustibles. Obviously, our fire in the tower is going to require HUGE quantities of O2. The fire location was several hundred feet up, in one of the windiest areas of NYC. There is NO windbreak for that height in that area. The buildings were "holed through", allowing a natural wind flow (and thus, draft) though the area of the fire. All easily observed, accepted fact, and common sense observation, right? Now, lets talk about a much less than obvious oxygen source. EVERY passenger carrying jet aircraft has what are known as "oxygen generators". These devices feed oxygen to those drop-down face masks the cabin folks demo for you. They are not fed by tanks of gaseous or liquified oxygen (the exception being the pilot and co-pilot, who ARE "bottle fed"). The oxygen generator uses a large quantity of solid oxydizer, which is "burnt" through a catalytic process to liberate oxygen in huge excess of that required for the process. they are robust, reliable, ALMOST accident free systems. But, if we examine history, we will see an example of the potential harm they can do. If you look up the "Florida everglades Value Jet crash" of the late 80s or early 90s, you will see what happens when one of those gennies broke loose, broke open, and burned uncontrolled. I can assure you, once those planes hit those buildings, those "gennies" were structurally compromised. That provides an "artificial draft" equivalent to that seen at the tip of an acetylene torch. These conditions would easily support very high temperature flames. You also have another HUGE O2 source, NEVER cited by "truthers": Iron oxide. Rust, when exposed to heat, gives up oxygen.

      Now, let's discuss "thermite" (the oft cited "demolition charge" of the "truther"). Thermite is a simple chemical compound (iron oxide, aluminum power, and oxydizer), that when BURNT consumes the aluminum as fuel, using the oxidizer and the liberated oxygen from the iron oxide as draft, leaving a final byproduct of molten liquid, slaggy iron alloy. This alloy, if directed properly will melt steel. However, the action is ALWAYS parallel to gravity (it runs down, like ALL liquids). To get thermite to cut across the section of an I beam, the beam would have to be laying on its side, or a complex ceramic "bucket" would need to be used to "puddle" the molten alloy into the side of the beam, which would NOT reliably "cut it", but would perforate it, without a doubt. This would leave "canoe smile" holes in the faces of the beam, NOT "diagonal stairsteps", which is evidence of torch cutting post collapse by cleanup crews. The "chemical evidence of thermite" cited by the profiteers of the "truther community" is actually to be expected, as all the ingredients: aluminum (the plane), oxydizer (O2 gennies), and iron oxide (1/4 century old structural steel) were KNOWN to be present in the fire.

      I could go on about the structural design, and how it's very nature as a building pretty much ensured each tower would collapse as they did, but I think I have provided more than enough info to demonstrate why you should take the pontifications of those who speak outside their field of expertise with a grain of salt. Please, independently fact check EVERY fact i have mentioned, as it will demonstrate the validity of my assertions (I also deliberately did NOT cite any "authority" to preclude the possibility of "mickey moused" citation, or chicanery on my part). I receive NO monetary compensation for my words. No "honorariums", no "speaking fees", no web site ad revenue, no book sales. How many of those "brave leaders of the truther community" can say the same?

    14. That's brilliant Harry. By far the most robust, sensible, palatable rebut to the "truthers" positions I have ever come across. Sincerely well done, and thank you for taking the time to explain so much. Certainly plenty of food for thought, and I will print this out and pin it on my wall for reference.

      We had a chimney fire here last year, my first experience of it. The chimney looked like the rear end of a jet engine as the oxygen was sucked through, up and out the top. Very, very scary. The fire brigade didn't bat an eyelid. Even while it was surging, they assured the building would be fine, but they'd just check everything as a precaution. It was fine. I often wonder what temperature that reached? Certainly enough to crack the massive 3.5' pot up top. The fire positively sucked in the oxygen with an unquenchable thirst.

      I didn't see evidence of such a thing in the fires of the towers. As though the hole itself was too big to create the tight funnel this chimney fire relished so much. An effect which you rightly explain could ignite magnesium and aluminium. The 'combustion train effect' you speak of makes a lot of sense and could even be what the emailer in the programme was legitimately concerned about, by Steven Jones revealing vulnerabilities to many or most large buildings. Okay, but the infamous black smoke, phone calls (and waving) from locations very nearby tend to reaffirm the suggestion of a general 'lower heat' than you describe. The fact that some survivors actually managed to pass from the floors above, through the impact levels (via the stairwell), to eventual safety also suggests the impact didn't create an all consuming furnace .

      To make matters worse though, sorry, even if those floors at impact level were incinerated out of existence, so the top collapsed down on to the rest of the structure, I simply can not fathom the results we saw - once, then again and then once more. Anyway enough of my rambling - I need to research more information. Just because I can't fathom it out, doesn't mean I'm asserting I'm right about anything at all.

      Thanks Harry, once again, for your brilliant response. You'd defs make the dinner party list, for sure.

    15. Thanks for an intellectually honest response. I'm glad my points are able to resonate for you. I ask no more than honest examination of actual conditions. a further point of combustion dynamics can also lend some clarity. There appears to be a tendency to assume homogenous "structure of combustion" within the conflagration. That is incredibly erroneous. one must also take into account differences of efficiency of combustion within a large fire, especially one with varied fuels throughout. Smoke color is notoriously poor for determining fire conditions. as an example, lets use a horizontal draft situation. If end A of our fire is the air inlet (draft source), and the opposite end B is the exhaust point, A can only provide so much air. If that available oxygen is mostly consumed in the first 1/4 of our "journey of combustion", we will see a small section of high temperature, efficiently burning fire, followed by a smoldering "too fuel rich" section. Overall, the smoke emitted will say "too rich, too cool", while the actual progress of the fire, even if slowed in spreading, is one of a very high temp fire, even though "smoke sign" tells otherwise. Collections of fuel and oxidizer in "draft dead spots" could result in incredibly hot, but very localized "spot blazes", which likewise only add "neutral smoke" to our smoke cloud. The smoke emitted by the paint on a piece of steel that i cut with a torch has no bearing on the heat or efficiency of the torch flame, as a nice simple visual example.

      As an addition, please understand i hold no contempt for those who "buy the rap" of the "truther experts". I only ask that evidence be considered as a whole, with as much factual input as possible, and an eye kept on "intellectual honesty of examination". In short, I'd like to see examination with scientific skepticism, with NO acceptance of "because i said so". Obviously, by your response, this is a mindset you also embrace. I'd be more than happy to spoil a dinner party for you, BTW, lol.

    16. I wish I could say the same, I really do, that I don't have any contempt for these people, but, at this point, I'm afraid it just ain't so. Nobody has a good excuse for buying into these bs "arguments," anymore, if they ever did, and I suppose I look at them as people willingly allowing themselves to be duped by con artists, or even those less sophisticated than that. Having said that, I don't personally hold that view of Digi at all, because I know he's better than that, even though my harsh remark had to come on the tail of his...
      I am just sick of the idiocy and bias I see everywhere from these truthers, that's all. You CANNOT talk reason with most of them, and that's the end of it.

    17. Are you saying that the 911 Commission investigation is all truth, and that you are satisfied with the result?

      Why did:
      George W. Bush - President; testimony not under oath. The session was not officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" in which highly classified information would be discussed. Asked to limit the length of testimony to one hour (However, the meeting lasted for three hours and ten minutes). Testimony took place in the Oval Office. Initially, Bush insisted that he testify only to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the commission, but later agreed to testify before the full panel.
      Dick Cheney - Vice President; testimony not under oath. The session was not officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" in which highly classified information would be discussed. Testimony took place in the Oval Office.

    18. I've only seen parts of the Commission report, so I really can't answer you there... But probably not. And if Dick Cheney told me firetrucks are red, I'd call him a shifty-eyed, goddamned liar to his face... However, what I'm talking about is the uncritical EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY culture that we are living in now, where so many are willing to believe the most absurd theories, and are not willing to seriously consider good evidence against what it is they want to believe.

    19. If even one of the conspiracy theory has merit....then perhaps we live in a world much different than what we are fed, especially if we start with fraudulent election which would be at the very base of what we are TOLD by the puppet string holders.

      I am not one to bet on anything with certainty, but the world around me sure plants a lot of suspicion as to how and who controls the information including the media, CIA, gov, corporations.....etc. We see it clearly in other countries but we are blind to our own.

      Even on a small scale we are demonstrated how power, once in the hands of humans will be used in a deceitful way, just look at little kids when they play together in front of adults....at least they do it in an innocent way.


    20. I meant to get back to this one right away, and plum forgot about it...

      You don't have to worry about me believing what the government tells me... My first rule about that for a long time now is pretty much what George Carlin's was: "I don't believe anything the govt tells me... zip, zero, zilch! NADA!!" It may turn out they were telling the truth about something in the end, but I'm not just going to take their word for it. I grew up watching Watergate go down, and while I was still way too young to really understand much of it, it did serve to plant seeds of doubt in my head early on. As a result of that, growing up, and common sense, I don't feel I'm any more blind to political corruption and subterfuge in this country than I would be concerning any other; far less, in fact. I don't feel like I need to be enlightened about this subject all that much. I get it, that people in power tend to do what they can to maintain that power, or even expand it. NO ONE could be any more willing and ready to believe that 911 was a big crock designed towards that end than me, but, I'm sorry, up to now I just haven't seen any good evidence that suggests it was anything other than a rich, outraged Arabian fanatic with the resources, intelligence, and training to fly under the radar just long enough to achieve his stated goal of committing an act of terror on U.S. soil. I mean, really, oQ! The man and his followers had committed lots of other terrorist acts for which they claimed full responsibility, so were all of those false flag operations, as well? Or did all that just make it ever so much more convenient to use the poor, misjudged, overestimated man as a patsy, as some claim? It isn't evidence, it isn't indicative of the truth of either camp, but as my wife and I watched the towers fall that day, I turned to her and said, holding up a finger, "You watch. There's no way people are going to accept any of this at face value. There are going to be all kinds of conspiracies and stories about 'what really happened' before you know it." And it didn't take much to see that would be the case, either, because this country had already gone through the "coup d'etat" of the Kennedy assassination, another big story that just couldn't possibly be as simple as it appeared to be, and having read a lot of books about that subject over the years, I was already well acquainted with how willing a person with a story to sell can be to manipulate facts and information to suit their purposes.

    21. You only need to be fed two spoon full of shite to think that the rest of the plate is nothing but that.

      Ask anyone in front of a supposably good and expensive meal.

    22. Lol, that about sums it up well enough for me, at least up to this point. This whole 911 industry has given me a bad case of food poisoning, and here I still sit with a toilet under my butt and a bucket in my lap, wondering if it will ever end. But if a new chef comes in with a thoroughly incredible spread, and the word gets out, I'll eventually make my way back to the table.

    23. I sent you a response about 4 hours ago, but it's still lost in moderation.

    24. "truthers" have a highly stratified "membership". they run the gamut from folks like Digi (open to hearing all sides, and more "agnostic" in his current position), to the lunatics who honestly believe alien ships or fallen angels did it. their "spectrum" includes MANY more "stripes", of course, some more willing to listen than others. debating the more glassy eyed specimens is pointless, no matter what "reasonable" position you may have, assuming you have any basis in reality, is pointless. anyone who truly believes it was an aggressive act by "alien grays from the kupier belt" or "shape-shifting fallen angels bent on satanic dominance of the planet" (yes, i have actually heard these positions championed, sadly) will absolutely dismiss any position but that one, obviously rejecting everybody. those who currently have "profit motivation" to absolutely reject any position but their own will also do so. most others will listen to reason, just with varying levels of "sales resistance". i will most certainly listen to any position that offers up some actual "proof", but i also expect the same courtesy if you shove "thermite" in my face. if you offer up something i can debunk, i will. if a "piece of evidence" can be explained away in a logical, sensible (not always the same) manner, that is less complicated, and requires no framework of supporting evidence, it is more probable than an alternative explanation that requires a framework of missing evidence to support it. so far, i have been offered no compelling evidence to support, and have seen plenty reason to doubt, any position at odds with ANYTHING but the airliner strikes causing those buildings to collapse. the same for the pentagon, and the crash site in PA. if anybody can offer up something that can "stand on it's own legs", i'm open to hearing it.

    25. I feel exactly the same way, though I'm far less apt at shooting down the particulars of an argument. That may be equal parts natural-born laziness, lack of skill, relevant education, and nearly total frustration, I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that I'm glad there are still folks like you who can, and who will take the trouble to do so, because (and I may be wrong here, but still) what so chaps my a$$ (and even plain scares me a little bit) is how widespread such terrible thinking appears to be getting, what with the Internet, and shows like the X-Files, people like Alex Jones, etc., or who knows the hell what else...The money-makers AND the nuts. So many seem to be taking every crazy thing they hear straight down now, with very little questioning. And they'll all call that "waking up to reality," but it seems to me much more like a critical-thinking killing virus that's just getting a firm grip on more and more people throughout the whole world.* Like you, I looked into 911 as objectively as I possibly could, and couldn't find even one conspiracy theory that could stand up to real scrutiny, not one.These days, it just seems that, ipso facto, EVERY major event is AUTOMATICALLY a conspiracy, profitable for some, and bad for everyone else. Are people really this unintelligent now?

      *though this may be a little unsubstantiated paranoia on my part, lol...

    26. i blame the modern standard of "all POV are equal". of course, such a position is pretty much correct in philosophy, politics, and other "humanities". it falls far short in science. many fail to make the distinction. many appear incapable of making the decision. many "sharpies" exploit those failures or inabilities. folks tend to embrace that which supports presupposition. the same applies to reinforcement of prejudice. we also have the scientifically least educated populace in the industrialized world. toss all that in a blender with some ice, and the "ignorance smoothie" being such a popular drink here in the states makes perfect sense.

    27. Alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older,
      slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New
      World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and
      Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be
      overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no
      Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity
      and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to
      adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

      Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was
      that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one
      who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of
      information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would
      be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would
      be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea
      of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley
      feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some
      equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal
      bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil
      libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose
      tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for
      distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by
      inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting
      pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley
      feared that what we love will ruin us.

      Neil Postman,

      Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

    28. *bitter guffawing*
      And growing fatter on them by the hour...

    29. I am one that believes we didn't hear everything. Lots of questions left that beg for answers. If that makes me part of a category of people that only includes idiots, I'm still in some pretty good company.

      You seem pretty sure of your analysis, and I agree it is pretty good. Would that make you a "believer?" Believers get short shrift on this site.

    30. You won't get ANY serious rebuttals from the lop-faced, cross-eyed, pinheaded "troofers" on this one, Harry.

    31. wow really? Explosions were heard in building 7 when a massive plane crashed into the building next door? wow I can't fathom where those explosion sounds might have come from....It can't have been the exploding planes that they heard it must be secret government sneakybombs instead

    32. there are witness accounts of hearing an explosion, seeing structural failure, then hearing the plane's impact. my point is this is easily explained by the differing speeds of sound through mediums of differing density (more dense, quicker). the "sound" traveling through the impacted building, then the bedrock, and into building 7 would also travel with the various vibratory large wave destructive impulses. thus, one should EXPECT exactly what the witnesses claim to have observed: boom (through stone), destruction of structural points overstressed by the wave, and finally boom (through air). that the floor mopping witness might be ignorant of this is completely unremarkable, but the complete ignoring of it by these "savvy experts" demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual honesty in their "investigation". of further note is the "witness testimony" becomes more numerous CLOSER to the impacts, and lessens with distance. this is also to be expected, as the distance traveled by the wave through the solid is height of impact above bedrock, plus linear distance between structures, plus height of witness from bedrock. the "through air" vibration only contends with linear distance between impact and witness. at some point, they reach a balance of "time to ear". this also nicely accounts for the "explosion before impact" testimony of tower occupants. if the "official story" has holes, the "conspiracy theory" is a VERY coarse mesh of large holes joined by thin webs of factoid, innuendo, and emotional knee jerk response.

    33. how can you cross a line in a 'free society' with freedom of speech
      when concluding from data that doesn't add up & posing deservedly
      questions about it which led to a forced retirement?challenging his work not his integrity of profession would have been the adequate way & a little less blind faith of government is active democracy.

    34. "free speech" does NOT apply to scientific honesty. As "aron rah" so aptly put it in one of his youtube vids, "science has a one strike policy". Buck the system of checks and balances, while claiming "scientific validity", and you wave goodbye to your career, at least as far as academia is concerned. There is no shame in backing a hypothesis until it is disproven, there is no "backlash" for backing an erroneous theorem that further examination disproves, so long as the methodology of "proof by experiment, submission to peer review, repeatability of experimental results" is adhered to. Nobody is expected to "bat 1.000". There is, however, NO tolerance at all for blowing smoke from your rectum. You're free to adhere to ANY hair brained idea, but the second you, as a scientist, champion it as "scientifically valid", you had better be prepared to back that up WITH SCIENCE. Obviously, the "truther movement" has fallen FAR short of that requirement. That, sir, is how you "cross the line", by representing opinion without validation as "scientifically valid".

    35. doesn't cut the cheese..as valid doubt was presented & not only in this case.how: high are the stakes that three buildings with differing (slight) impacts & one without....
      & all fall perfectly to their footprints?near to none!

    36. You push the line in a country that has free speech by abusing that freedom of speech to spread lies and misinform people.

    37. you push the line with an unsatisfying report which doesn't deal with the issue thoroughly!

    38. exactly i do trust the opinion and value the work a certain dr wood on this subject though- i wish she was bonkers but she is the only actually qualified professional analysing the footage and events of that day with scientific clarity and no fudging of the numbers

    39. Judy Wood is THE WORST person to listen to. I wouldnt even call her a doctor.

    40. always YOU epicurus on this subject- she is eminently more qualified than you in any case and asks many questions others dont.

    41. she has more qualifications. that doesnt stop someone from going insane like she CLEARLY has. and the only people who would believe in space lasers taking down the towers are equally insane as she is. and im not on this subject, you brought her up.

  54. waisting time professor !!!!!!! you are trying to make people smart but do they don't feel the need to be smart .. you are a smart man , not because you are a professor no not at all , you stopped to be a Republican that is super smart

  55. so there is one big problem with this guy, well a couple actually but mainly his involvement with cold fusion, helping to cover it up, ruining the careers of pons and fleischmann and the small fact that every one seems to be missing .... the towers didnt collapse. it seems as though they were in fact turned into dust in mid air. Steve Jones is aware of this.... because he is aware of energy breakthroughs and seems to have an interest in helping to suppress them. there is some rather astounding info in the work of Dr judy wood and andrew johnson. check it out.

  56. The science presented here seems sound to me. I am not a scientist, so my opinion means very little. But what about Prof. Jones' peers? Why are they not compelled to verify his work? As scientists, isn't it their duty to consider the data? If there isn't a cover-up, why is there such an effort to discredit him? If the truth is so scary to Americans, how are we ever going to truly achieve democracy and 'freedom'? We can not keep spewing this rhetoric to the world if we don't believe it ourselves. If Americans are content with just saying the same old 'catch phrases' learned from the media, then not only are we hypocrites, but we are also cowards. Stand for something you believe, not for something that someone tells you to believe. We are better than this. As for Prof. Jones' students and university peers, stand up for him. Maybe it will be you that gets shunned next just for having something to say.

    1. "Stand for something you believe, not for something that someone tells you to believe"
      She says as she ignores all of the evidence to listen to what a paranoid delusional with no evidence is telling her to believe.

    2. From what I saw, the professor presented very compelling evidence. He made no speculations as to who or why, just how. Do you not believe the science? What, exactly, is it about the two scientists seemed to you as delusional and paranoid? To me, they presented their findings coherently and professionally.

    3. Science isn't something you 'believe' in. Science is what can and cannot be proved.
      All theories about explosives in 9/11 have been thoroughly and conclusively debunked time and time again...What is it about every other scientist in the world that you disagree with?
      If you're going to be so pro-science, then you can't dismiss the vast amount of data backing the official explaination...we call that cherrypicking!

  57. All it takes to believe the Gov version is never researching for yourself, blind faith in what media puts out and never asking yourself some basic questions.

    What agenda was achieved? We lost freedom and Gov has grown exponentially.

    Why was the steel so quickly sent to China to be melted? To destroy thermite evidence

  58. same man who organised the vote to dismiss cold fusion at mit...full of s*it.

    1. would you care to elaborate?

    2. Hes a stooge, a puppet if you will and his nanothermite theory is scientifically unsound as well as being utter bollocks.- to rig a building to come down like that from thermite would take months.

      I do not know what brought those towers down but the one actually asking the scientific questions of note has been thrown out of the "truth" club that this mr jones runs.

      Fact is what happened on that day might well be more proof of LENR as a technology and last time the media had an interest in this guess who popped up to stop them? and steer a vote to dismiss it as a scientific concept? steven jones thats who!
      scientist my arse- science doesnt vote its theories in like jonesy here

      He is a renta stooge "physicist" who is neither qualified nor capable of doing structural, mechanical or materiel analysis of the event of 911.
      and the question still stands?
      where did the towers go?
      (hint: judy wood doesnt know nor claim to have the answers but her questions were so good Steve jones threw her out of his propaganda club- google her)

    3. Nice one Pop, I'm googling now...

    4. Are you disputing the nature of the "energetic" orange and gray pieces found in the dust? In a short search, I have found some interesting disputes with Steven Jones' dismissing of tritium data, for example. It is interesting that this documentary is prompting controversy that seems to assume the official conspiracy theory is insufficient to explain the 3 building collapses (apart from a_no_n maybe)

    5. whatever brought seven down wasnt fire - thats not controversial- if i fire a burning arrow or even 600 into your body your bones dont magically disappear and you dont collapse into a neat little pile of skin.

    6. I just watched a Judy Wood presentation. It truly indicates the strong possibility that Steven Jones is yet another diversion.

  59. Watched this a couple years ago. Very interesting. Professor Jones appears to be anything but a sensationalist. Presents as a very intelligent, sensible man. Brave too.

    I was however almost driven to distraction by Frank Delessio's ironic orange Members Only jacket.

  60. Lots of scientific evidence without jumping to any ridiculous conclusions here (...aam641). Could your remark be any more unsubstantiated?

    Here's the unscientific bits:
    The university's lack of support for one of their own, and the scientific method he has implemented. Since when did science have to conform to be socially comfortable, first and foremost?

    The media interview that clearly had a biased agenda to discredit Steven whilst lying to the viewers (saying 'sorry we don't have time to show the clip [that we told you we would]' and then continuing the interview).

    The emailer was classic! Saying we can't allow terrorists to exploit potential weaknesses in our buildings, but then asserting fire can collapse massive structures in to dust. Followed by a 'be silent' and 'take the money or else suffer the consequences' approach. Yeah really scientific.

    I empathise with people (like Deborah Moderate) who say 'well, we did nothing after (JFK, etc.), so now they can act with impunity' kind of thing. It feels hopeless. Control of the media and the power to publicly disgrace and ridicule those who defy the official story creates a daunting and scary scenario.

    Quite simply, if Steven Jones' work was without merit or substance...these unscientific methods need never have been implemented - further good science would reveal it as so. The fact that these methods are at the forefront is most telling thing of all - he is being told to shut up, categorically. When did telling (or making) someone shut up ever change the truth? The truth will always be the truth, no matter how many attempts are made to subvert it.

    Steven Jones, and others, have clearly and scientifically, without leaps of the imagination (aam641) produced an astounding array of hard evidence that deserves more than the 'shut up or we'll make you shut up' response we have seen up till now...or are we still in the dark ages?

    Yeah...well I'd still rather have Steven Jones (and Michael Ruppert for that matter) over for a big boozy dinner party than let any of the Bush clan set foot on my front lawn.

    1. Most of the money Universities receive for research now comes from Major Corporations. With that in mind it makes perfect sense why BYU would not back him up and support him in his research.

    2. My issue with Steven Jones is that he went too far. He produced some scientific work, which he should have published in a scientific journal and continued his investigative work. Instead, he went to the popular media. And instead of discussing his (scientific) findings, he talked about aspects of 9/11 where he had no scientific evidence (video of building collapse). He then further strayed into far-fetched theories that his evidence could not support.

      I believe that he had the right to say that (and anything else) as a private person. However, as a university professor of physics, he should be held to a higher standard. A standard where he sticks to the facts and clearly labels any (as yet) unsupported scenario as a hypothesis. In his own words: "I want to see data, I want you to explain to me how your explanation fits the data; and if it doesn't fit the data, I am going to throw it out." This is the standard he did not meet. At no point did he show how his theory fits the data or how the "official" theory cannot fit the data.

      "...if Steven Jones' work was without merit or substance...these unscientific methods need never have been implemented - further good science would reveal it as so." Correct, but if you claim the university administration works on scientific principles, you have clearly never had much contact with them. BYU clearly over-reacted.

    3. Interesting. A good post aam641.

    4. I like the intelligent rational approach you use in offering a critical assessment of Steven Jones' story. But I can't make sense of it. The scientific method involves proposing a theory that best fits the evidence. His theory is "explosives brought the three buildings down". A significant piece of evidence (the very thing that transformed his view of 9/11 in the first place) is video of the building 7 collapse. "And instead of discussing his (scientific) findings, he talked about
      aspects of 9/11 where he had no scientific evidence [then here you list a significant piece of evidence] (video of building
      collapse). He then further strayed into far-fetched theories [such as "explosives brought the buildings down'] that his
      evidence [pieces of advanced explosive material throughout dust samples from the event] could not support." ??!! huh? I don't get it. Your point sounds plausible but I don't understand where you are offering support for it.

    5. I see in another post you offer some refutation on the nature of the energetic material. Steven Jones published his findings (relating to 9/11 event) and his stated conclusions by way of three peer-reviewed articles in established scientific publications. Last I heard, no-one in the scientific community has formally challenged these published findings. You and Harry Nutzack would be perfect challengers. Help put this silly matter to rest---scientifically, because I know I am not qualified to sort through the data (especially Nutzack's presentation) but I would like to see it presented to the scientific community for scrutiny in the manner that Steven Jones abides by.

    6. @Peter Wilson
      Scientific evidence: Thermite was present in the dust.
      Scientific deduction: Thermite was present in the building prior to collapse.
      Unsupported deduction: The US government intentionally destroyed the buidling by controlled demolition using a large amount of thermite applied in some unspecified manner.
      The correct approach: We know the concentration of the unreacted thermite in dust. Let's calculate the initial amount in the building. Then let's check if that amount placed in a realistic fashion could have brought the building down in the manner it did (cue to the video of collapse).

      Discrediting Steven Jones:
      I am not qualified or equipped to run the required materials analysis. Therefore, I would be limited to meta analysis of his published findings. Unless I had an evidence of intentional deception on his part (which I do not), this would amount to a personal attack on him. I will not destroy my reputation by doing that.
      However, my biggest criticism of his paper (which I read) was that he ran calorimetry in air. The most important signature of thermite (as opposed to a burning metal) is that it does not react with air. Iron oxide provides the oxygen. If he ran calorimetry in an inert atmosphere (which is the standard procedure for material decomposition anyway) and still saw a heat spike at 400 degrees, his case for thermite would have been rock solid.

    7. What is your opinion of the most likely causes for each building's collapse?

    8. WTC 1 and 2:
      Unlike some, I am convinced that an airliner filled with people actually hit each tower. The official story says that the subsequent collapse was due to a combination of fire damage and impact damage. Most alternate stories include explosives planted in the building. Personally, I find the official explanation more credible. Nobody has ever brought down a building that size. That the government could manage it on the first attempt twice and in such perfect manner seems unlikely. I just don't think that they are competent enough.

      WTC 7:
      Here I am very certain that the NIST final report is correct about the progression of the collapse. A single local failure created a cascading failure that brought down the entire building. Yet the local failure could have been caused by either fire or a small demolition charge. My problem with a controlled demolition is that the catastrophic failure could not have been predicted. We can model it in hindsight. But if on 9/10 you went to a structural engineer and asked if this single failure would bring down the building, he would give you very low odds.

      I think the terrorists wanted publicity and to kill people. In terms of destruction, they got a lot more than they planned for. If anybody wanted to actually bring down a building in a clandestine manner, a very large (10+ tonnes) bomb delivered by truck to the basement is a far more reliable approach.

    9. Thanks. You are a worthy participant in the forums. There are profound reasons to distrust the "government" folks (of all nationalities). They certainly seek control; that is an essential characteristic of "governments". People frequently enter into politics to attain personal gains, and clearly our government has, to a large extent, become a tool for large business interests that see advantages in influencing "government's" coercive powers over the populace. Also, it is fairly common knowledge (at least among history buffs) that, in order to gain popular support for invasions and other warring actions, national leadership figures often deceive the populace, always subtly---sometimes spectacularly. Try stating the opposite for each assertion while maintaining a straight face. There are a lot of odd things about 9/11 events, enough to keep me open to other possibilities beyond the official account. For me, questioning the official story is rare, just a handful (JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, and the Newtown school shooting have a number of odd features). I remain open to where evidence may lead, albeit from my highly disadvantaged position, sitting on my sofa.

    10. Peter, I agree with you that governments often lie to their populations. However, governments are not monolithic organizations. As you said, most people enter politics for personal gain. Government actions (or lack of action more often) comes about from large number of conflicting interests frustrating each other. Large conspiracies require that you very accurately forecast other people's reactions to events beyond your control. And I don't just mean the public reaction. There is always a dozen guys behind you who appear to agree with you, yet who would profit greatly from your downfall.

  61. For a documentary about a scientist, there was very little scientific evidence presented. They guy certainly loves to leap to conclusions that are way beyond what the evidence can support.

    @ Paul Gloor
    Simulation of all three buildings was attempted. WTC 1 and 2 simulations were not very useful. Too much info was missing about exactly how much damage was caused by the plane impact and subsequent fire. For WTC 7, while the computer model could not properly simulate the initiation event (too many unknowns), the subsequent collapse was simulated very accurately.

    1. When has any scientific evidence been found. The thing is everyone has their own hy poth e sis. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Simulated accurately. Think about what you just typed.

    2. "For a documentary about a scientist, there was very little scientific evidence presented," - Seriously? Seriously, you should watch this again.

      "The guy certainly loves to leap to conclusions that are way beyond what the evidence can support." - please list any leaps "the guy" made...even one?

      "Too much info was missing about exactly how much damage was caused by the plane impact and subsequent fire" - too much info was missing about why they collapsed, not the damage or fires - that is why the simulations were 'not very useful' - a euphemism of note.

      "For WTC 7, while the computer model could not properly simulate the initiation event (too many unknowns)..." - uhm there was a fire on a few floors and some structural impacts to the outer shell.

      "..., the subsequent collapse was simulated very accurately." - you mean animated, not simulated, for that's all it was, an unexplained, accurate animation.

    3. He starts by analyzing dust and finding particles that contain iron oxide and aluminum (and several other elements). After a few non-conclusive tests he calls the material thermite. Then he suggests that they are remains of a much large amount that was in WTC buildings. And then he suggests that this thermite brought those buildings down.

      You can see that all of this depends on the initial hypothesis, that the material found was in fact thermite. Yet its composition does not fit (not enough aluminum and oxygen, too much impurities). The calorimeter results are also misrepresented by focusing on the heat spike, rather than admitting that the results do not match thermite signature.

      And even if the material was thermite, this does not provide any scientific proof about all the subsequent suggestions.

    4. Fair enough. I agree. No conclusive evidence of explosives. But I categorically don't believe Steven Jones is trying to use this data or evidence to prove such a thing either. ...if the dust was free of these particles, then he would know he was wrong about his hypothesis - but the data does not disprove it. So you can say that the data was completely useless for proof or disproof, but look at what has happened to him for the questions. The two positions are very different. At the end of the day the rabbit hole is revealing much more than dust particles as a result of his research - I would say.

    5. The "rabbit hole" is much too confining! It connotes phuked up indignation towards wannabe intellects. DigiWongaDude stick with, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" there is hope for us all there!

    6. "uhm there was a fire on a few floors and some structural impacts to the outer shell."

      The initiation event was a thermal expansion (due to fire) of a critical girder on the 7th floor (AFAIR), which removed lateral support from an important internal column. And this could not be properly simulated, because you would need to know the exact strength of all bolts and welds involved. From there the column buckled and brought down the building, which the simulation replicated very well. The simulation was then rendered as animation, which closely matched the available camera footage.

    7. I know, from studying structural steel engineering (I'm a qualified architectural technician) that bolts and welds form a joint approximately 3 times stronger (if I recall correctly) than at other points. Call it over engineering, but that's the strength of the jointing points. You can say heat weakened the welds but that is why the are welded and bolted. Just saying. I am aware of the failures of box trusses at a single point of failure, and of firemen who say 'never trust a truss' but first it has to fail in one point completely. You are not talking about a box truss, you are talking about a a support beam. If you think the joint can't possibly be the strongest point, even a wood joint glued with PVA forms the strongest part of the wood.

      So to reiterate. Bolts and welds in combination must fail completely. The fact that the beams buckle with expansion tell you that they don't just fail - if they did, they would pop out and remain straight. The degree of buckling required to force a joint failure is not possible with the temperatures experienced by those fires. Not hot enough or prolonged enough either (opinion).

      When I hear things like this, about buckling and bending of massive steel girders, all I can think of is Uri Geller and his spoon bending - that wasn't real either, and bolts don't pop like popcorn in a microwave.

    8. or john hutchison? weirder and weirder

  62. Unfortunately the murder of JFK and family along with Martin Luther King set a precedence amongst the citizens of the United States, they did nothing about it then, why would they do anything about any further atrocities done by their government. The 'magic bullet' theory is well known with the JFK killing, yet not a single American soul spoke up. They now have carte blanche to do what they please knowing apathy reigns.

    1. Sure they spoke out about it. They shortly died of unknown causes briefly after.

  63. I would like to know, what 'terrorist' doesn't have access to google and the ability to search things like 'Demolition methods' 'Thermite' etc... speculating on compounds capable of bringing a building down won't give the enemy any information they don't already have.

    I can say, we have sufficient technology and data on materials, how they act and age as well as detailed structural plans for the trade centers to simulate the towers falling under various scenarios, has this been done ?

  64. One thing that is so compelling is this man was a successful, respected, republican with a career he loved who was just fine with the official story of 9/11 for years. While those who aggressively defended and promoted the official story received accolades and promotions, this man pursued the truth despite the certain ruin of his career (he was warned explicitly). Like a great scientific theory this presentation was elegant and simple. As dmxi pointed out, what happened to the detractors on this one?

  65. You guys really need to get real' have you ever seen the amount of wiring you need to demolish a building with controlled explosives
    I think someone would have noticed about half mile of fuse wire

    1. I guess you have never heard of remote controlled detonators

    2. And not just the wire. What about the explosives? Based on the amount they found in the dust, were are talking about 10+ tons of termite.

    3. I wonder if they ever painted the insides of the twin towers. Hmmmmmm

    4. Another doc points out how it is believed they did this - sorry can't remember which one but I saw it on this site also.

    5. I just recently watched it. Blew me away. The most interesting is the Russian who says they had mini nukes under all those buildings.

    6. I just read the other day they found landing gear from one of the planes stuck in between two buildings. That would be worth looking into. But I have since heard anything about it.

    7. Thermite is as simple as painting. Before you saying anything else s*upid, please do some research. 911truth .org

    8. Before stupid comes out of your fingers again, try some research. 911truth(dot)org

    9. You really do need to do more research on 911. Check out who and what had offices in building 7. It would not have been that difficult to put the charges in place, it's just called remolding for a new tenant, no one would question seeing any person in telecom uniforms accessing the buildings, construction crews, or noise. The Towers were a money pit for the city of New York.

    10. There were CIA offices in Building #7 - evidence needed to be destroyed? Also NY emergency center which the Mayor and others were told not to stay in building 7

    11. WTC 1 & 2 were closed - at least two nights, if not 2 days close to just prior to 9/11 under the guise of maintenance and painting. Thermite can be "painted on" and who was in charge of the WTC security that over-saw this? George Bush's younger brother. This is pointed out in another doc - sorry don't remember which one but one of the more creditable ones. NO other building has ever collapsed due to fire - let alone demolition style without the force of gravity somewhat slowing it down (3rd law of physics) into it's own footprint. Witnesses who worked in Maintainence at WTC 1 and 2 as well as firefighters reported huge explosions in the basement and underground floors before any planes hit. Then of course 6 or do hours after twin towers demolition - down goes building #7 same demolition and free fall speed into it's own footprint and nothing hit that building.

  66. The truth is unhealthy. Just remember the truth will not set you free

    1. I know you are being sarcastic.

    2. The truth is Bin Laden was a CIA op a d like Oswald re JFK- a patsy. Many of the supposed people who hijacked the planes (were said to have) are still alive and well - names listed almost all Saudi so Bush attacks Iran - hidden agendas all over the place.

    3. Its a clear understanding of what the Saudis and the present president are hiding.

  67. Whether the US staged the attacks or not - the result is the same. Another war was started.

    Lol, think about it: how many wars have the US fought and how many of them were fought on their home land? The US is the only country in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons in a war. Truly "Team America: World Police"

    They have invased and bombed foreign countries for whatever reasons in the last century... All I can say is: that is not going to help with the terrorist issue.

    1. How many have they fought and how many do they need to loose before someone steps in and says. WTF... Why is it that everyone in the presidents circle are profiting while everyone people are being killed and the war lost. Costing billions, trillions of so called lost money on a war that was never meant to be won in the first place. Using our soldier as nothing more than a tool for an inner circles wealth. Does it really take a rocket scientist ot look at the bank accounts of those from bushes circle to Obamas?

    2. How many have they fought ? How many do they need to lose before someone steps in and says. WTF... Why is it that everyone in the presidents circle are profiting while everyones peoples are being killed and the war lost. Costing billions, trillions of so called lost money on a war that was never meant to be won in the first place. Using our soldier as nothing more than a tool for an inner circles wealth. Does it really take a rocket scientist to look at the bank accounts of those from bushes circle to Obamas? Wake up people.

  68. Profound logical scientific proof that 9/11 was yet anther American false-flag operation. The Military Industrial Complex needs to be fed. Every time these falsehoods are perpetrated on the American people you are losing more and more freedom. I am a Canadian. As the bombs went off last Monday in Boston my first thought was, what are THEY up to now? Whoever THEY (the covert powers that be behind U.S. government that may well act without the knowledge of your President, Congress, or House of Representatives. Watch to see what your military does next. THEY absolutely want American citizens living in fear and confused. Brave man who has proven all Americans and the world has been lied to about, among other things, 9/11. There are conspiracies. THEY want to marginalized and call you crazy if you disbelieve "U.S. Gov't" or 9/11 Report about what they want to say happened because it's all about gas lighting American citizens so they won't want to believe very difficult truths. The 9/11 Commission Report was as much fiction as was The Warren Report in the (coup de ta) assassination of JFK.

    1. I am also Canadian and you expressed exactly what went through MY mind after the bombings in Boston.
      Sometimes I just think I'm going crazy because most people look at me cross-eyed if I say anything.

    2. Most people don't want to even contemplate the difficult questions which continue to go unanswered.

    3. I wonder. If one was an undercover FBI/DHS agent trying convince a reasonable person that everybody who doubts the official story must be a crazy loon, would he be able to write something more fitting?

    4. Why do so many here feel the need to name call and argue. Isn't the point of documentaries, in part, to get people to think more about things? Debate and do so respectfully? We don't have to agree but I chose not to go further in a devolving attempt (?) at dialogue. Too many people need to be right. I'm not saying I'm totally right at all. I do believe there are too many unanswered questions. To blindly trust all the secretive intelligence agencies etc in the U.S. makes no sense.

    5. Very well. To continue the dialogue, I see no convincing evidence that there is a single THEY operating behind the scenes. Too many people (with conflicting interests) would have to be in on it.

    6. THEY is the top 1% with all the power, behind the scenes.
      That's my opinion.
      If I choose to believe THAT, then it is okay for you to agree to disagree, no?
      I just wish to make my feelings known, and will respectfully listen to others and digest what they have to say.

    7. I used to take part in a little community forum with our local newspaper.
      I left because there were extremely vicious remarks to many people's comments.
      Believe me, this forum isn't as bad!
      But I keep expecting nasty comments and it hasn't happened to me here, yet!

    8. That little community didn't go under the name 'youtube,' did it? (lol)
      Whenever I've got some reason to watch a video there, I usually take a moment or two to scan the comments... There's just something about being angry that kicks the comedic part of the brain into high gear for a lot of people, one can't help noticing. I may be somewhat of a bad person for finding some of those hilarious, but as long as I'm not involved...I confess I do. (But I'm talking about arguments where one is giving as good as they're getting, just to be clear, not something like outright bullying...)

    9. I'd say Yahoo comments are about equal to YouTube in hilarity.

    10. Yeah, but Yahoo is so politically partisan, most of the time... and even more vicious, probably. If I stay there too long, I'M the one who ends up ticked off, lol...

    11. I am rarely ticked off but i do laugh a lot at some of the attacks...it's probalby due to the fact that i rarely attack and if i do, i sneak it in (gently) with a grin....and i have my favorite i like to poke....you know.

    12. A good tactic, that!
      Some of them I find funniest aren't even directed at other people... I just watched one about Clinton, and right there in the middle of the page is the succinct little phrase-
      ...which just strikes me as so hilarious, for some reason.

    13. You know, I never paid attention to Bill when he was President; (I'm Canadian), but he's done a lot of good deeds since then. He surprised me!
      And really, I couldn't care less what he was up to with Monica. I actually found it made him more "human".
      She was a consenting adult, after all.

    14. An afterthought; imagine Stephen Harper in a sex scandal!!!!

    15. It usually does take leaving office before our presidents can start doing good deeds...

    16. everyone please stay on topic. bringmeredwine this is not directed at you personally but i had to reply to someones post :)

    17. No! It was my town's newspaper that had an online community forum! I agree, You tube has crazy comments! Subject: Re: New comment posted on Hy.poth.e.sis | Watch Free Documentary Online

    18. Name calling and arguing is easier done behind a screen....it's not just here...any forum site is the same.
      It depends on you to make it different from you.

    19. I can now blow people up and you will blame the government for me. Thumbs up to you!!!!

    20. I hardly think that's what I said.

    21. Maybe not but your first reaction on the Boston bombing was one that was ready to indict before any facts were known. This implies a predisposition to accept only the information that validates your initial gut feeling. In other words, if I detonate a bomb in a public place, your first instinct is to wonder what the government is up to and I get an initial free pass. If I am caught, you are more likely to believe that I am a government "patsy" and the tool the government uses as a means to an end. I thank you for your support.

    22. You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that
      it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

      Rahm Emanuel
      Emanuel previously served as the White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2010, a Member of the United States House of Representatives representing Illinois's 5th congressional district from 2003 to 2009, and as senior advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998. A member of the Democratic Party, Emanuel also served as the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2005 to 2007 and as the Chair of the House Democratic Caucus from 2007 to 2009.

    23. I am Canadian too and regret that, as shown above, my country has its share of conspiracy theorists. Even though nothing bad ever seems to happen to us Canucks.

  69. very quiet in the nist supportes corner,i see.......?

    1. I guess they don't watch docs on Saturdays

  70. Is professor Jones saying that no planes were flown into the towers. I'm confused!

    1. Whether actual p,Abe's flew into the Towers (or whether they were missiles as in the case of the pentagon) what this scientist has proven is that the buildings collapsed in a way that means they were controlled pre-planned demolition. Remember World Trade Center Building #7 - less fire than Towers 1 & 2 and not hit by a plane or missile or debris or anything and it didn't collapse (wasn't purposefully demolished) until approx 7 hours after the Towers collapsed (were purposefully demolished) using chemicals including thermite.

    2. No, that is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that there has never, ever been a high-rise building that collapsed from fire, not ever fires that burned for hours on end. The jet fuel would have burned off quickly. By the way you can place a lighted match on jet fuel and it will not blow up!

  71. I support this guy.

    911 was what today is the marathon bombing and the man hunt, they needed a pretext for a war, they just need pretexts to abolish any new gun regulations now. Same thing happened with Luther King and JFK and all the dictatorships in Latin America....it's a shame most people is just blind to see how obvious this is.

    1. Speaking of Latin America; has anyone read Naomi Klien's book "Shock Doctrine" ? GOOD read. Couldn't put it down. Milton Friedman's Chicago School of Economics and the IMF. This is what students SHOULD be learning in schools !!!! Another one I read in 1998 was "The Twilight of the American Culture". Another AWESOME University professor told to "button it up" after 27 years or so of teaching !!!!! Another good book is "The Rise of the Fourth Reich". Read these all within the last year.

    2. another really good read was Confessions of an economic hitman. He used to work for a proxy of the IMF IRRC and was the first man in during these coups. He would be the one telling the gov head to sell his country out 'or else' so to speak. To bad i lost the book b4 i finished it :(

    3. Thank you for that one...will look it up.

    4. I just finished reading 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' Fascinating...and he's the one who did the deeds.

      There are so many corrupt forces at work in the world. It's just impossible to believe in anything at face value.

      Too bad in addition to all of our politicians, our media is lazy while being bought and payed for.

      Based on other 'accidents', I am amazed and pleased that Dr. Jones is still alive.
      It's quite revealing that he was so dismissed and marginalized.

      I do appreciate the fact that he doesn't purport to know who was responsible but is just giving the evidence of science behind the catastrophe.

    5. Shock Doctrine is great. A must read.

    6. This site has the Shock Doctrine documentary.

    7. thanks for the hint.....i've read n.klein's 'no logos',great insight
      into sweatshops & modern slavery that enables OUR consumerism!

  72. a perfect example of suffering for the truth. the education system is a fraud. its much more than a cult.

  73. Thank you Prof. Jones, you ARE making a difference.

  74. Why doesn't the government challenge the data???? Cause, we're right, they're wrong! Controlling the masses.......

    1. They are actually; just in a more terrible way. You may of heard, but Harvard(?) released a paper condemning conspiracy theorists claiming that they were dangerous and some policing should be conducted(make CT illigal) so that they dont "endanger" the people by destabilizing and causing distrust in the government....Pretty sure the gov't does a fine job creating distrust on their own.

      By and large, the gov't at the least had these suspicions coming considering all the false arrests that the FBI conducted in creating their own "home grown terror". Its sad when the gov't are so desperate to find terrorists they are willing to fund and propose attacks on their own property just to get a conviction.

  75. i salute the man's bravery...in years to come the true merit will be praised!

  76. Wow 21yr's working at BYU= one true statement and your fired so much for freedom in the U.S.!!!

    1. It also happened to a very well-respected university professor in British Columbia.

    2. What do you expect from a Mormon university?

  77. Wow NO COMMENT THIS DOC OF FACT"S. I give up nut's I say!!!

  78. Good argument - the best I have seen although I don't want to go there - good argument.

    1. Very scary and difficult " to go there" isn't it?

    2. That's the problem. People would rather close their eyes and blindly believe what the government is telling them. Scary as hell to believe our government would kill it's own people just to invade another country.

  79. Who are the beneficiary of this destruction " It's a dirty game" They are playing with spirits human beings for the money and purposes "If we assume that al-Qaeda planned to hit the towers 9-11 This means that the American intelligence and hands black hidden" revealed their plan and then do the plan as it serves them "goals dirty

    1. They said we will attack you America. The "governed mint" says go for it. Better yet we will take care of it. They said you are evil. "governed mint" says plain and simple, SO! Yes, government was plainly spelled wrong if you just use a little bit of thee old thinking block on your shoulders. The truth is far more insane than anyone would like to comprehend.

    2. They said we will attack you America. The "governed mint" says go for it. Better yet we will take care of it. They said you are evil. "governed mint" says plain and simple, SO!
      Yes, government was spelled wrong if you just use a little bit of thee old thinking block on your shoulders. The truth is far more insane than anyone would like to comprehend.