Another Quick One

The Texas State Fair is happening, and Civilization 5 keeps calling.

Meanwhile, NIST updated their FAQ about the WTC 7 investigation. Here’s one of the additions:

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.”  One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building’s east penthouse “disappearing” from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time).  Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?

The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing.  The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.

This was something that I’d referred to before. Allegations from the 9/11 Truth movement that NIST is trying to hide the east penthouse are ludicrous. It has been everything debunkers could do to get 9/11 Truth advocates to even acknowledge that the east penthouse is a part of the actual collapse. Now suddenly that some in the movement think they can prove NIST shenanigans, this video is being used as evidence that the east penthouse is being covered up. Please, let’s discuss the east penthouse and the role it played in figuring out what happened to Building 7, Truth Movement!

October 2, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · Comments Closed
Tags: , ,  · Posted in: WTC 7

Why Believe Simple Collapse Isn’t Possible?

I’m sorry for the longish hiatus (curse you, Civilization 5!), but in lieu of my own work here, I’d like to present a recent excellent post by Carlos at the James Randi Educational Foundation:

Consider these two statements:

A – Fire can bring down steel structures buildings like Twin Towers.

B – The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition.

It is quite possible to believe that both statements are true. If you believe that “B” is true you don’t need to believe “A”is false.

In other words, if you believe there is sufficient evidence that explosives were used in the towers, it does not mean that you have to believe that the collapse due to fire would be impossible.

So what are the arguments that support the claim that fire can not bring down buildings?

Before answering, let me remind you some facts:

1 – Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.

2 – The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.

3 – It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.

4 – The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.

5 – Progressive collapse does exist.

This… is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It’s about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn’t have collapsed due to fire.

There is, of course, no reason to have to believe a simple collapse of a steel-framed building is not possible. This is what AE911Truth and Richard Gage have stated, though. It’s amazing to me that they consider it such.

But for the reasons Carlos puts forward, there’s no reason not to consider unassisted collapse a viable option. It is possible for buildings to collapse due to fire alone. That one has not before 9/11 or after is not evidence for the opposite, but evidence for the power of the social safety net that exists throughout cities that build such large buildings. Between design codes and firefighting operations, humanity has only let three buildings slip past the many safeguards meant to keep them up.

Indeed, the unassisted collapse of these buildings has already led to better design and resulted in at least one building being saved during a catastrophic fire –the Mandarin Oriental. The designers of that building had conducted an extensive internal study of the WTC collapses, and then designed the Beijing building from the lessons learned. However, AE911Truth uses this victory, a genuine instance of humanity learning from tragic mistake, to say the tragic mistake could not have been a mistake.

They could not be more wrong.

September 27, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · Comments Closed
Tags: , , ,  · Posted in: Common Myths

On Bazant Zhou

I was reading through an old post at the James Randi Educational Foundation forums and came across this great quote by the poster Newton’s Bit. It concerns the Bazant Zhou paper and a common misunderstanding of what that paper was trying to show.

When a column develops plastic hinges and buckles it absorbs a very large amount of energy. It absorbs orders of magnitudes more than a simple shear connection failing, or a truss web, or a connection from the perimeter column to the diaphragm. If there is not enough available energy absorption in the columns then there is no possible way that the building could resist the collapse. Bazant and Zhou shows this very clearly.

What Bazant Zhou showed through simple mathematics is that there was enough energy present in the upper sections to buckle the columns all the way down. In fact, there was enough energy by an order of magnitude necessary to buckle the columns all the way down the Towers.

But this is not what happened! And to be clear, Bazant Zhou does not claim that this is how the towers fell. But it’s important to recognize that the falling upper section could cause many other failures in the building’s structure below. Newton’s Bit lists three of those. Since the upper section had enough energy to buckle the columns all the way down, failures taking far less energy to accomplish had no chance at all of stopping the fall of the upper section.

So papers like Tony Szamboti’s Missing Jolt which demonstrate Bazant Zhou’s mathematical model did not take place in reality have missed the plot. It was unnecessary to do this, because Bazant Zhou has always been an idealized case, taking the strongest assumptions in favor of the towers surviving to demonstrate that they could have. If the buildings could not survive the best possible case, then they could not have survived whatever actually occured.

And other papers of Bazant’s go on to demonstrate that not even the heart-stopping sight of mass shedding we see in the actual collapses, not even the dreadful pulverization and comminutation of concrete and wallboard and floor contents could not diminish the amount of energy in the upper sections enough to save the lower structure, floor by floor by floor. Once started, the upper sections could not be denied by the structure beneath. There was no pivot point available to deflect the complete upper section off to the side. Fragments and shards, yes, but the complete mass, no. There was nothing but down for the bulk of the mass, and down it went.

September 19, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · Comments Closed
Tags: , , , , ,  · Posted in: Common Myths, Twin Towers

Explosion on “Seven’s Exploding” Video is Not Original

Wow, what a big, loud explosion is on that video tape. Too bad it’s not original to the video.

First things first. It’s worth mentioning that the video was recorded just after the collapse of the North Tower. The location appears to be on the north side of Murray just to the west of West Broadway. The sun is shining down the street in a way it only could have that day around 10:45 a.m. Therefore, if this explosion is meant to be associated with Building 7, it is occurring 6 hours and 35 minutes before 7 actually collapses. What it has to do with knocking 7 down, I can’t understand. No one in AE911Truth will ever try to explain it in a cohesive way, because that would mean committing to a hypothesis, something AE911Truth will ever do.

However, the explosion we hear has been added to the original audio of this video. As explained by the poster gumboot at the James Randi Educational Foundation forums:

The sound is fake. It has been added. The fireman in question says “I know that, but you gotta get back, the city’s exploded.”

The people present talk over the explosion, as if it had never happened. In addition, the explosion is heard most clearly in the low frequency range and upper range. The volume levels for the explosion are well below all other sound in the area – the voices of the people peak frequently and yet the only peaking on the explosion is below 60 Hz.

The lower end could be explained by a distant explosion, however the high-volume upper end indicates close proximity to the explosion. Consumer handycams have very poor performance at the lower end of the audio range, and professional cameras are equipped with shotgun microphones designed specifically to pick up human voices.

There is no echo on the explosion – and yet it supposedly occured in a crowded city – which produces multiple echos.

I disagree slightly with gumboot’s transcript. Instead of “the city’s exploded,” I believe it’s “the city’s explodin”. However, it doesn’t change the actual intent of what the man is saying (and it certainly isn’t “Seven’s exploding” as many seem to hear).

The flinch of the person on the phone to the “explosion” is also odd. It seems to be about a second behind what you’d expect, although the rest of the audio is in sync. It’s as if there were actually some loud, but distant sound on the original audio, a sound not impressive enough for whoever added this explosion to the tape. So this more vivid explosion is added just a bit before the actual noise so as to eradicate the actual sound and any edit.

Regardless, no one on the video is acting the way you’d expect if the explosion was actually that loud, especially having just gone through the collapse of the North Tower 15 minutes earlier. Some kind of bang, I’ll grant, but not the one we currently hear on the tape.

And gumboot’s point about no echoes becomes very pertinent due to the location. The person on the phone looks down West Broadway, the direction the camera follows a second later. Looking at a map, it’s clear that this is a direction that the sound would have been heard coming from Building 7.

However, it’s also clear that for the people to look the direction they are looking, the sound would be echoing up the street. They look southeast. WTC 7 is southwest. The sound reaches them by echoing, and thus would have more echoes as the sound bounced off other surfaces to reach them. At the very least, as loud as this explosion purports to be, an echo should have been heard a split second later from Greenwich Street as the sound traveled up it and then down Murray. However, the explosive sound currently featured on the audio has no echoing in it.

This is not the first altered audio that AE911Truth relies upon in its argument. That dubious honor goes to the Oslo demolition video used by the group that edits out the clear explosions heard in other videos of the demolition. And to be fair to the group, it’s not clear exactly who added this explosive sound. It could very well have been done for artistic reasons in the documentary this video clip came from (a phenomenon that has happened before in the 9/11 debate). After all, you can hear the last note of a soundtrack right at the beginning of this clip.

But for a group that regularly derides the authoritarian nature of people who accept the Official Conspiracy Theory, blindly accepting and using a video that seems to confirmtheir own conclusions is a rather interesting choice. They really should stop using it.

September 16, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · Comments Closed
Tags: ,  · Posted in: Common Myths, WTC 7

Liveblogging the AE911Truth Press Club

What is it about 9/11 Truth and vanity publications? Of course everyone realizes that the Press Club rents out its facilities for all sorts of things – weddings, Larry Sinclair, and now AE911Truth. Please don’t think the National Press Club has endorsed what Richard Gage and Mike Gravel will be talking about today, or that it even considers it noteworthy. The only thing they’ve endorsed is the check for the room rental.

I’ve signed up and I’m waiting for it to start.

2:00 p.m. Eastern — OK, it hasn’t started yet on the webcast. I reloaded. I also check C-Span. They are running the White House press conference, a rerun of a February Senate hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and a New American Foundation panel on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Brian Lamb is in on the cover-up as well!

2:11 p.m. — Still no Gage and Gravel. I guess they had trouble getting the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran out of the Holeman Lounge. Maybe they’re waiting for reporters?

2:15 p.m. — C-Span2 moves on to a Ninth Judicial Court conference on self-represented litigants. The webcast continues to not work.

2:21 p.m. — Considering an online order to my fave sammich place that delivers here in Dallas. Webcast still is only broadcasting a AE911Truth banner here – still on slide 1.

2:22 p.m. — I heard audio!

2:23 p.m. — Gage kicks us off with his standard appeal to authority.

2:25 p.m. — “Uncovered”? Oh, no, starts out with paint chips and microspheres. All old stuff.

2:27 p.m. — And now even older stuff. Thermite, molten steel. The Herrit volume is not peer-reviewed. It’s a vanity publication, pay-for-publish.

2:29 p.m. — John Gross has only ever denied reports of pools of molten steel. This is a standard lie told against John Gross. It’s not specific to Gage.

2:30 p.m. — None of those flashes or sounds of explosions are on the videotapes.

2:31 p.m. — Bazant has accounted for the pulverization of the concrete. And, sadly for Gage, free fall is already baked into the NIST modeling of Building 7.

2:32 p.m. — The NIST modeling accounts for how all the columns were severed. It was a classic progressive collapse.

2:33 p.m. — The “crumpling wall like tin foil” is of a later modeling with none of the observed damage added to the run. Gage and AE911Truth should be laughed out of the room at this point. They can’t even read!

2:34 p.m. — A shot of the audience. They’re all thinking, “I’m never listening to Mike Gravel again.”

2:35 p.m. — Any of those science advisors here today? Hands! Gage finally sees the faces of the audience and blanches. Telling, indeed.

2:36 p.m. — Three more? Scientists and Military Officers? Isn’t that two? He said two to start out, and then changed to three.

2:38 p.m. — First question — Fed whistleblower. Russell Pike, electric warfare on Americans with technology weapons, directed energy weapons. Gage: sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up.

2:40 p.m. — Irregularities in crash into Pentagon – the other 9/11 Truth theories are crashing the party!! But hey, says Gage, we don’t know what hit the Pentagon, either, so peace, brother!

2:41 p.m. — Directed energy lady is back at the microphone. Operation Mockingbird gets a hit. Cass Sunstein has killed three people? What? Way to work the David Ray placement in, Gage!

2:43 p.m. — To the UN? They are being considered. We are not Attorneys for 9/11 Truth. We are Architects & Engineers. We have a path of justice to pursue. “Certainly international venues are on everyone’s mind.”

2:44 p.m. — A nice little shoutout. He’s going to fast for two years, no solid foods, until the truth comes out. There is a universal force that can’t be manipulated.

2:46 p.m. — Nano-particles related to first responder health problems? Gage didn’t say they weren’t Doctors for 9/11 Truth. He’s happy to speculate about this, though.

2:47 p.m. — Silverstein woo. “He’s implicated in a number of statements that we don’t explore too much.” Only the hard evidence for them. Dave Schlessinger (sp) then introduces Mike Gravel.

2:48 p.m. — The guy going on a fast was Dick Gregory.

2:49 p.m. — You don’t have to believe 9/11 Truth to oppose the war in Iraq and torture. Exhibit #1: Me.

2:51 p.m. — Little known fact: the 9/11 families didn’t get the investigation started. 9/11 was heavily investigated before the 9/11 Commission got started. The Commission relied on these investigations as well as their own testimony gathering efforts. Yes, I’m glad the family members pressed for an overall commission on the matter. But people who say it wasn’t investigated before the Commission started are incorrect.

2:56 p.m. — Cleland’s statement is being taken out of context. He had a specific situation in mind. That’s really all this is. A number of perfectly legitimate complaints in context are being woven together outside of those contexts to lend support to AE911Truth. What do air traffic control tapes have to do with building demolition? I thought AE911Truth only deals with hard evidence of controlled demolition?

2:59 p.m. — NIST only wanted to know how the collapses started. That’s true. After the global collapse started, there was no computer on earth (and still isn’t) that could model the ensuing collapse. Bazant Zhou had explained in the month after the collapse that the upper section could not be resisted by the lower structure after falling a single floor, so modeling the entire collapse sequence was a waste of time.

3:00 p.m. — Gravel says that truth movements spring up when governments don’t do their job. I disagree. More later.

3:01 p.m. — Hands on official account. Nobody raised their hand. One in the back. Preaching to the choir.

3:02 p.m. — Unsure? Five.

3:03 p.m. — Controlled demolition? Everybody else. Sausage party! Gravel says we don’t have to have the debate — it’s already settled! What a card.

3:05 p.m. — The mock debate is, of course, continuing.

3:10 p.m. — Shyam Sunder, John Gross, Zdenek Bazant, Leslie Robertson, Ronald Hamburger, Gene Corley, Dave Thomas, James Meigs, Michael Shermer, Ryan Mackey, Thomas Eager, Van Romero, Brent Blanchard, Abolhassan Astaneh, Jon Magnusson, Hyman Brown.

3:11 — Meigs: What do buildings look like when they fall down? Old stuff. Concrete structures, so much smaller than any WTC building, those are also earthquake collapses, not gravitational collapses. They fell due to massive lateral forces, unlike the WTC buildings.

3:13 — Here goes the standard talk. The Characteristic Features slide shows up. Where did this list come from? One feature they miss – the segmentation of buildings that are controlled demolitions.

3:16 — Gage is just talking now. I thought this was a mock debate.

3:17 — 3 people in this audience had never heard of Building 7? Um, can we get a recount on the people sure or unsure of controlled demolition?

3:18 — Look in the Dan Rather video! It’s the last time we’ll see the east penthouse part of the total collapse of WTC 7.

3:20 — Gage trying to explain the NIST report’s explanation is painful to listen to. By design, or can he just not understand what he’s talking about?

3:22 — Is this technical guy (didn’t catch his name) going to deal with the specifics of Building 7 instead referring generally to other buildings? No.

3:23 — The way the west penthouse collapses shows the core columns are not failing at the same moment.

3:26 — And yet NIST didn’t have to change their modeling after seeing a short period of free fall? Because the model IS consistent with free fall. Chandler confirmed the NIST modeling!

3:27 — Szamboti!

3:28 — Barry Jennings was nowhere near the building when it fell. How can he be a witness to explosions at the point of collapse? We are edging into intentional lying here by AE911Truth. Jennings’ “big explosion” was debris from WTC 1 falling into Building 7.

3:30 — Craig Bartmer: how many collapsing 47-story buildings has he been next to, so he could compare…

3:31 — McPadden and the faked explosion video make their appearance. Incredible.

3:32 — Flame-Engulfed Buildings

3:33 — Bill Manning quote – they never quote him a couple of months later, happy with the progress on the investigation. Danny Jowenko makes his appearance.

3:35 — Gene Corley — oh, man. Corley’s point is that the fireproofing was removed during impact!

3:37 — Dave Thomas — no explosive sounds were recorded. The only explosive sound we’ve heard so far has been faked. Back to long list of testimonies. Why do we need the testimonies? Play the tapes!

3:39 — The collapse didn’t start on Floors 10-15 in the Towers. Flashes there aren’t explosive devices starting or continuing the collapse. Yay, special pleading! “Deceptive explosive demolition…”

3:40 — Tony Szamboti weighs in on dynamic load. There is velocity loss in the towers collapsing, Tony. There is resistance. Where is it going, Tony? What work is that energy doing?

3:43 — Upward streamers — actually, when you run the video, you can see debris falling out and down. As the collapse drops lower, the streamers then appear to be going up.

3:44 — The North Tower collapse begins on the south. Gage’s video is only showing the North.

3:45 — Szamboti says the collapse started above the impact floors. Well, heat rises, doesn’t it?

3:47 — Szamboti assumes that columns are buckling. However, if they were just being knocked out of the way by a twisting, tilting upper section, then you don’t have to worry about calculating columns buckling.

3:50 — Robertson says the way it collapsed is expected. OK, technical dude I didn’t catch the name say that the upper section should have been thrown outside. Now they’re talking about all the debris thrown outside the footprints during the collapses. Will they put this together? No.

3:53 — Pinpoint accurate explosions below the debris field. OK, what structural elements were being pinpointed there?

3:54 — Hint for Tony Szamboti — the perimeter columns are buckling before the free fall period starts in WTC 7. After they buckle, the building falls.

3:56 — No collisions, says Tony Szamboti? 2/3rds gravitational collapse, says Gage? Why if there are no collisions (and thus no resistance) in the North tower is the collapse only happening at 2/3rd gravity? Where is that extra energy going?

3:58 — Gage is getting animated.

3:59 — Gravel is getting quieter and quieter. I think I saw people leaving earlier. It’s been two hours since scheduled beginning. This dedication to telling everyone in the room everything that they already agree with is almost religious in nature.

4:02 — “We show our work.” On the Internet. Show it to a legitimate peer-reviewed publication!

4:05 — Steel that is red-hot or orange-hot isn’t molten. It has to be white-hot before melting. Hot, yes. Molten? No.

4:06 — A nice clip from the liefest that is 911 Mysteries.

4:07 — Are we going to get a picture of the “meteorite” which is actually pancaked floors that Gage was looking for earlier?

4:08 — Gravel is thinking he’d rather be hanging with Jackie and Dunlap.

4:10 — Technical guy I didn’t catch the name of is one of the authors of the thermite paper. Let’s see.

4:14 — Must be Jeffrey Farrer. What’d I miss? “It’s all in the paper.” Yeah, you soaked the paint chips in solvent and then couldn’t find any chromium. How about that?

4:17 — Getting the after-talk count. Gravel: “I think the one person left.”

4:19 — No, that wasn’t Farrer. There’s a picture of him at the BYU website. Not this guy.

4:20 — It’s 4:20! Dr. Lance DeHaven-Smith starts talking! Coincidence?

4:21 — DeHaven-Smith: “The Declaration of Independence is a conspiracy theory.”

4:24 — OK, while DeHaven-Smith goes into JFK conspiracy territory, let’s wrap up. There was NOTHING NEW. I expect that in one year, it will be exactly the same. Nothing new, same old same old. Maybe no Gravel. He does seem to have perked up.

4:26 — Technical guy is like, y’all get out, we got four minutes left. Geez Louise. The webcast fades to black. The Press Club event staff starts rolling the room over for the Kellogg School of Management at 6:30. Life goes on in Washington, D.C. I think I’ll go grab some dinner.

4:40 — Hey, wait a minute. I didn’t hear a plug for Building What? anywhere. Did I miss it? Was I typing? Strange…

September 9, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · 2 Comments
Posted in: AE911Truth

Lawrence Wright on HBO Tonight

The author of “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” also presented some of his material and his experiences writing the book in a one-man show. That show has now been filmed and debuts on HBO tonight. Anyone interested in the topic of 9/11 should read Wright’s book, and I expect his HBO special will be just as engrossing.

September 7, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · Comments Closed
Posted in: Shoutout

7 Facts About AE911Truth and Building 7

Adapted from Building What?’s 7 facts

1) If nano-thermite caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever and only nano-thermite-induced demolition of a steel-frame high-rise.

2) Building 7’s collapse was extensively examined in the NIST NCSTAR 1A final report.

3) Most people don’t know about WTC 7 because coverage went largely to the collapses where people died and because the building collapsed late on an event-filled day.

4) It took AE911Truth seven years to even get 1,000 architects and engineers sold on their version of how Building 7 fell.

5) The vast majority of architects and engineers accept the NIST final report. Others dispute various aspects of it, but accept that fire caused the collapses.

6) Even AE911Truth admits that a controlled demolition concieved and executed on the day of 9/11 is impossible, so the discussions on the ground of possibly demolishing the building is a moot point. It couldn’t have been done that day.

7) Building 7 was in operation 24/7, with people coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Any attempt to place nano-thermite charges on core and perimeter columns would have been noticed.

Building 7 was so far away from the WTC complex, so very far away, that the access ramp for the entire complex went under the east side of the building. So very far away that a whole building was between it and the North Tower…

Oh, my goodness I can’t even describe how far away Building 7 was from the North Tower, plus Building 6 was between them.

And I like this picture of the debris pile of Building 7 so much, I’m using it myself:

There the debris pile is, stacked up neatly in the footprint of WTC 7. Except the building seems to have been built across a four-lane road, because its debris pile is all the way over the street against Fiterman Hall, as you can plainly see.

And what about WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6? Well, the funny thing about WTC 3 is that it did completely collapse. Debris from the South Tower knocked a huge gash into the building, and then the North Tower took out the rest of the building. 4, 5, and 6 were also much smaller buildings than 1, 2, and 7 as you can see from the illustration above. They simply weren’t dealing with the mass and weight of upper floors as 1, 2, and 7.

But other than that, Building What? may have a point. Somewhere.

September 7, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · 3 Comments
Tags: , ,  · Posted in: AE911Truth, WTC 7

Iron, Sulfur, Oxygen

Corrosion is the disintegration of an engineered material into its constituent atoms due to chemical reactions with its surroundings.”

Iron, sulfur, and oxygen are the primary ingredients of the eutectic corroding Sample 1.

Gypsum wallboard, when burned, produces sulfur dioxide.

Structural steel is mostly iron.

Iron, sulfur, oxygen.

September 6, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · 2 Comments
Tags: , , ,  · Posted in: WTC 7

Pat Buchanan Endorses 9/11 Truth?

Oh, I thought so for about five minutes.

How did I get to Pat Buchanan’s no-longer-official website anyway? (Consults history…) Ah, yes, did a little search of the term “building what” just now. It was number three on the list. Intrigued, this humble reporter was. Clicked over, he did. Marvelled.

There it was, an endorsement and an embed of the Building What? campaign:

The 9/11 families have produced a 30-second ad that will appear on TV screens all over New York City. Please go to to find out more. Also see additional 12+ videos on their YouTube Channel…

Wow. First off, this isn’t the 9/11 families. Four 9/11 family members doesn’t make this a 9/11 families production. This is actually a joint production of NYCCAN and AE911Truth. As you can see, the webmaster (a Linda Muller) isn’t saying something like, “Oh, look at the junk these folks are saying.” He’s requesting his readership to go to the website, find out more, and check out all the videos. Without a disclaimer, this is most definitely an endorsement.

The FAQ says that this is no longer an official webpage of Pat Buchanan and that he doesn’t decide content. It looks like he needs to get his hand back in or get his name off this site…

September 5, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · 2 Comments
Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates

Explosion Right Before East Penthouse Falls?

Or wind noise?

Amazingly enough, this is brought up in a story where Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars claims that NIST edited videos to leave out the east penthouse collapse! Except for this one with the “explosion” on it. Kind of weird for NIST to edit the east penthouse collapse from other videos, but then release this video with the “explosion” on it, don’t you think? Is it a mistake, or is NIST doing it to us on purpose?

It’s amazing to me because it’s so freaking hard to get anyone advocating for controlled demolition on 9/11 to even acknowledge the existence of the east penthouse as part of the collapse. And suddenly, now that they have “proof” of an “explosion” right before the east penthouse collapses, it’s NIST who’s trying to keep people from seeing it!

Funnily enough, that’s the only “explosion” anyone can hear in this video. No one present that day on West Street, a couple of blocks from the building, even seems to notice it until the final descent of the outer shell. Visual evidence clued people into this collapse, not audio! So it’s this one explosion that takes down all of WTC 7? Is that going to be the story now?

Listen to this video of the Phillips building demolition in Oslo, Norway:

Listen to this video of the Landmark building demolition in Fort Worth, Texas:

Now go back and listen to the actual audio of the collapse of Building 7. Notice anything different, anything at all? I certainly do. Enough so that I thank the International Center of 9/11 Studies for releasing this video for us. With controlled demolition advocates like this, I may be able to retire soon!

September 2, 2010 · Joseph Nobles · 4 Comments
Tags: , , , ,  · Posted in: Other 9/11 Truth Advocates, WTC 7