CHAPTER FOUR: An Even Closer Look At 9/11


In regard to the actual events of 9/11, start by taking a closer look at Building Seven (WTC7) at the former World Trade Center. At forty-seven stories it would be one of the hundred tallest buildings in America.

WTC7 was that third building that collapsed in identical fashion to the two taller 110-story towers. It went down 5-6 hours after the first two buildings and it collapsed in the same signature straight-down precision as the towers. (No other buildings collapsed, although a number of other buildings suffered significant damage.)

First of all, it is amazing how few Americans are aware of this third collapse. It is a fact that has been virtually covered up and that alone should turn on the warning lights!


1) No airplane crashed into WTC7.

2) No jet fuel was injected into the interior of the building…which supposedly explained the collapse of the two towers. (There is more to say about that fantastically misguided notion later.)

3) When the building collapsed, it dropped straight down into its own "footprint"...and did so at just a fraction of a second short of "free fall" speed.

You might want to begin suspecting something here. If you're wondering what the hullabaloo has been about, among all these hundreds of scholars and experts, here is where we get into the nitty-gritty:

There was absolutely and utterly no reason or ‘known’ cause for this building’s collapse.

At first, government officials came out with a
"preliminary" report on the subject of WTC7, in which they conceded to having no adequate explanation for the building's collapse. They tossed out a few half-hearted ideas...that there may have been a localized explosion of a power generator on the fifth floor...and that some debris from the neighboring North Tower might have struck WTC7.

But none of that provides even the remotest explanation for the "how" and "why" of WTC7's collapse...a straight down precision ‘freefall’ collapse of a 47-story steel structured edifice, which possessed 600-800% strength redundancy.

Seven long years went by in which government officials still had not offered an explanation of how this building could have collapsed in identical fashion to a controlled demolition...and still not be a controlled demolition.

What was additionally suspicious is that they were willing to entertain any notion or idea of how it collapsed EXCEPT controlled demolition...even though hundreds of top engineering and architectural experts were and are loudly suggesting otherwise. Hmmm...why is that, I wonder?

Finally in August 2008, they produced a so-called "final report" in which they scrapped all their original arguments (which had been presented very 'authoritatively' in the mainstream media all these years) and then proposed a series of utterly fabricated scenarios in order to "re-explain" the collapse. It is just astoundingly absurd. Kevin Ryan, a leading 9/11 revisionist, provides a great analysis of this report which clearly demonstrates these absurdities.

If you are a thinking person, I would highly recommend at least browsing through the report. It is very 'layman-friendly'.

By the way: Initially, as I had watched the forty-seven-story WTC7 collapse on live broadcast, I had a layman’s notion that this must’ve come about as a result of tremendous damage inflicted on the base of WTC7. I surmised that as the Twin Towers came collapsing down, a huge wave of debris had slid across the ground, hatcheting into the foundation of WTC7. I assumed it had teetered there for a few hours before finally coming down.

But no such thing ever happened...nor were my layman's notions even close to realistic.

Take a look at the map below. Notice that WTC6 stands squarely in front of WTC7, completely shielding 7's base from WTC1 (one of the Twin Towers). Additionally anomalous is the fact that even WTC6 did not collapse…much less would there be cause for WTC7 to do so!

In fact, while you're looking at this map, please note that the four closest buildings to the two Towers (WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 AND WTC6) even though heavily damaged DID NOT COLLAPSE. But WTC7, relatively off in the distance...dropped like a rock straight into its own footprint.

Where, when and how was WTC7 ever exposed to anything even remotely resembling catastrophic, cataclysmic damage??

Very simply, there is no earthly explanation for the collapse of this building other than…precision-placed and -timed explosives. And if it WAS a controlled demolition…the implications are horrible and evil.

Ironically, the most important source of evidence here is…SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. By all means, do some research into the architectural and engineering aspects of steel-structured skyscrapers as I did…OR you can (as I now realize in hindsight) apply simple common sense in deducing the following:



Building Seven--World Trade Center

When professional demolitionists bring a structure down in that manner, it requires that ALL of the building’s critical supports be removed with precision timing…in perfect simultaneity.

I would challenge anyone to stand next to a 47-story skyscraper and try to make themselves believe that all of the critical supports of that massive edifice could all fail at the same moment…as the result of chaotic accident, and by pure happenstance.

You should sooner believe in the tooth fairy. Sooner believe monkeys can type dictionaries by accident.

In the history of steel-structured skyscrapers, there has never been a collapse resulting from a fire, much less has there ever been an ACCIDENTAL demolition-style ‘straight-down’ collapse of any kind. On 9/11 there were supposedly THREE of them.

Even if a building of this kind were to suffer huge cataclysmic damage at it’s base (through a massive explosion similar to the one in Oklahoma City, for example), there still would’ve been something far different then a precision ‘freefall’ collapse.

One might’ve seen at first...a listing or a leaning, maybe some partial crumbling. And then if the building literally lost it’s ability to stand…one would’ve seen a chaotic tumbling or toppling. By contrast….

…WTC7’s supports all turned to jelly in an instant. The roof reached the ground in 6.5 seconds. If you were to DROP a bowling ball (or some heavier object) from the same height it would take 6.0 seconds. WTC7 COLLAPSED IN A FREEFALL. Please understand the significance of that.

Earthquakes, fiery infernos, Tomahawk cruise missiles....nothing but nothing has EVER replicated controlled demolition. Here, for example, are some photos of buildings hit by massive earthquakes in Taiwan.

Though enormously powerful quakes literally knocked these buildings down, there is no telltale pile of rubble. Nothing that even remotely resembles professional demolition.

Below are two examples of structures heavily damaged by bombs: The top photo shows a building in Iraq which was hit by a cruise missile. The bottom photo shows the results of Israeli military bombings in Lebanon. Hundreds of buildings have been impacted by flying warheads during the Iraq war, often times with huge chunks of the buildings blown away, followed by blazing infernos. None of these buildings experienced a freefall collapse into a pile rubble.


Below is some remarkable footage of Danny Jowenko during the very moments he is seeing the collapse of WTC7 for the first time (a few years back). Jowenko, a citizen of the Netherlands, is one of Europe's top demolitionists.


As you watch Jowenko being shown video of WTC7's collapse, he has three reactions--

1) He immediately and unreservedly declares this is "obviously" a professional demolition job we are watching. He has zero doubt.

2) He is completely stunned to be informed a few minutes after viewing the video, that this collapse happened later the very day of 9/11. Over and over he asks: "De zelfde dag??" ("The same day??"). He clearly understands the horrific, monstrous implications.

So then during the next several minutes he tries to theorize that someone may have made a snap decision (for whatever reason) to wire up the entire skyscraper with demolition explosives on the very day of 9/11...and had somehow miraculously accomplished this in only two or three hours. Jowenko seems not to really even believe this himself.

3) The coup de grace comes towards the end of the Google video, when the interviewer also informs him of the bizarre fact that FEMA has literally excluded the possibility of controlled demolition as an explanation for WTC7's collapse...even simply as one of a number of possible causes.

At this point, we watch as Jowenko begins to realize and conclude there has obviously been a cover-up from government authorities...and therefore what a truly horrific scenario the 9/11 attacks are in actuality: Mass-murdering psychopaths somewhere inside the halls of US government.

A mere rogue terrorist from a far-off land (Bin Laden) would be infinitely preferable, as opposed to evil from within. After all, if the "authorities" have been the culprits, who do you notify? The "authorities"?

A couple years later, in a
2006 telephone interview, he reaffirms these dark conclusions. Here is an excerpt:

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly.


As a side note: There were numerous reports of explosions at WTC7 leading up to the collapse...and during the collapse. And the fact that this latest NIST report (August 21, 2008) doesn't bother to interview any of these witnesses is troubling, to put it mildly.

Craig Bartmer, NYPD officer: "I myself ran from Building 7 as it fell. I heard with my own ears what sounded like a rapid succession of explosions, while running."

Kevin McPadden, First Responder: "...the Red Cross rep ...said--'You have to stay behind this line. They're thinking about bringing the building down...he put his hand over the radio...and we heard what sounded like a countdown...the last few seconds, he took his hand off the radio, and we heard--'three-two-one'."

"In another two or three seconds we heard explosions--like 'ba-boom!' It was a distinct felt a rumble in the ground...I knew that was an explosion..." LINK

Probably one of the most dramatic testimonies has come from Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director for Emergency Services. He, along with Michael Hess--Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC (who, by the way, has given only one perfunctory, "official story"-confirming interview)...was trapped in WTC7 for hours...and testifies to innumerable ongoing explosions.

Jennings' testimony:
"Upon arriving into the OEM EOC, we noticed that everybody was gone. I saw coffee that was on the desk, the smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half-eaten sandwiches."

"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up...

"I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings
[WTC1 and WTC2] came down - all this time I'm hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I'm hearing explosions..."

Jennings went on to describe having to step over any number of dead bodies as he was being led out of the building by firefighters. The official reports claim there were no fatalities at WTC7.

Disturbingly, this recent (August '08) NIST report apparently puts words in Jennings' mouth in claiming he only reported two obvious falsehood. And the fact that the other guy, Hess, is completely a very glaring indication of bad things. Concerned citizens should be...concerned.


As to the official explanations for the collapse of these two 110-story towers…let’s get a few simple straightforward scientific facts cleared up, in regards to fire and steel:

Firstly, steel melts only at extremely high temperatures nearing 3000F...a minimum of 2750F.

In stark contrast, the highest temperature any hydrocarbon-based fire can achieve in open atmosphere (i.e. any building fire) is…1517F (notwithstanding some of the fairy tale figures floated out there through the media...2000F, 3000F, etc.).

1517F is FAR short of what would be needed to explain any sort of structural failure!

Steel needs to be heated to about 2200F to be sufficiently ‘weakened’ just for the purposes of forging, for example. That is a temperature that cannot be achieved in a structural fire.

Another fact: 1517F is far below the temperatures at which structural steel is tested for safety. The ASTME 119 standard far exceeds the upper reaches of even the hottest building fires ever recorded. This standard requires that the steel be exposed to temperatures of 2000F for several hours. The steel at the WTC was certified to that standard.


Amazingly blatant misconceptions have been allowed to wend their way through the American community (courtesy of the ever so "helpful" mainstream media) regarding the fires at the WTC.

At first in the early days after 9/11, a number of "experts" came forward pushing the idea that the steel in the buildings had literally "melted", causing the buildings to collapse:

A number of commentators from the BBC (Chris Wise and others), the Scientific American magazine (Eduardo Kausel), a hugely hyped NOVA video with Matthys Levy, "expert" Henry Koffman from USC, Tom Mackin from University of Illinois, The New Scientist...on and on.

Then the establishment media and academia dropped that idea like a hot potato.

Next came the notion that somehow the fires weakened the steel in the buildings...enough to cause structural failure. That version is believed by many Americans to this very day.

So, what about this "weakened steel" idea? Consider a few more simple facts:


The atmospheric temperatures of the fires at the World Trade Center never even came close to the maximum 1517F. Fires of this magnitude can only come about under ideal conditions...conditions which DID NOT exist on 9/11.

There must be an intense, prolonged, raging inferno to reach those levels. For example, pictured below is an office building fire in Madrid, where temperatures of 1470F were actually measured.

The Windsor Building—Madrid, Spain-(Feb.12, 2005)

Now that's an inferno. This fire went on for about twenty hours. The fires at the WTC were a far, far cry from what we see in the above photo.

One obvious indicator was that the World Trade Center fires were producing great volumes of dark smoke. Expert observers have stated that, at least in this instance, dark smoke was evidence of a very pronounced oxygen deficiency and therefore an indication of temperatures far below the maximum 1517F. Even the NIST has conceded ".... dark smoke [is] characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions."

The photo on the upper left shows the aftermath of the Windsor fire, in Madrid. Please notice that the building has not, and never did…come close to collapsing.

The photo on the lower right shows dark smoke spewing from the Twin Towers, a sure sign of oxygen deficiency and thus significantly lowered temperatures.


At this point, the case for controlled demolition gets even stronger because not only were the atmospheric temperatures at the WTC well below the maximum (probably no more than 1100F)...please also understand the following:

The temperature of the fire (i.e the "atmospheric" temperature) is completely separate and distinct from the temperature of the steel in that fire!

For example, if the fire temperatures (i.e. atmospheric temps) reach to 1100F during the course of a half hour structural blaze...the steel temperature would probably reach no higher than half that...500F or such a relatively short period of time.

To repeat: That "maximum" (1517F) is referring only to atmospheric temperature. The temperature of the steel itself would be much lower than the atmospheric temps, particularly in a fire of short duration such as at the WTC.

Why is this? Because steel has considerable capacity for heat conductivity. Heat travels through the steel, spreading thinly and diluting in the process.

Numerous tests have previously been conducted on various steel structures. Many engineering firms have however, mysteriously 'scrubbed' their Internet pages which document the actual temperatures from their testing.

A couple of nimble 9/11 researchers have been able to capture "cached" pages from Corus Construction (among other documents) which show the test results--

Corus Construction would stoke up huge fires in a number of available steel structures (typically parking garages) and take readings. The fires burn for about an hour to achieve near-maximum atmospheric temps (about 1500F) and then they measure the temperatures of the steel beams during a fifteen minute "dominant period".

The steel temps rose to a maximum of only 675F. That is documented fact. Without a shred of doubt, these kinds of tests and analyses have been conducted innumerable times, the world over, for decades. (Granted, if the fires had a longer duration, the steel temps can increase.)

Think about it: Does anybody believe architects and engineers (not to mention investors of billions of dollars) would go about willy-nilly, building gigantic skyscrapers without having long ago determined with absolute precision, the EXACT impact of fire? Nonsense.

John Skilling, for example, the lead engineer for the original construction of the World Trade Center, made the comment in 1993 (about airliners crashing into the Towers):

"...our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building...but the building structure would still be there". (From the book "City in the Sky".)

In other words, the designers had carefully thought through the various aspects and issues concerning fire and steel...contrary to the dubious notions being forwarded that "no one could have known or foreseen the impact of fires at the WTC". Please.

Kevin Ryan has addressed the issues of fire and steel temperatures in a now famous letter to the NIST. Ryan has played a major role in the so-called "9/11 Truth movement". He had been a certified expert working for Underwriters Laboratories, which was tasked with the responsibility of analyzing the fire and collapsed buildings at the WTC. He sent this letter of rebuttal when he began to realize there was a government whitewash going on.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) had been working on a report that was allegedly going to explain how mere ‘fires’ brought the Twin Towers crashing down. On November 11, Mr. Ryan sent the following letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST.

The response to Ryan's correspondence was that he was immediately fired. This gives a partial answer to the question some may have as to how such huge undertakings could be successfully kept from the public:

There are in fact, quite a number of ‘whistle blowers’ who have been unjustly gagged, fired, marginalized, imprisoned and murdered as they have attempted to reveal many of these shenanigans. Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News is one such fatality, and more will be said about that later on.

Here are some excerpts from Kevin Ryan’s letter:

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel. He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTME119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.

Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C [500F]."

To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C [about 2200F]. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.

I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

(Letter from Kevin Ryan.)


In September of 2007, there was an interesting development on this issue of steel temperatures at the WTC. A rather amazing and grudgingly concessionary letter from the NIST, written to the head of the largest "9/11 family members group", Bill Doyle (who has also strongly concluded 9/11 was an "inside job") which the NIST is doing some very strange backpeddling.

Under pressure from the family members of 9/11 victims, the NIST has now admitted (as of September 27, 2007) that all the steel samples they have retained from the WTC's "ground zero" and have subsequently tested...were shown to have heated to no more than 500F. (See Section E)

Just exactly as Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, unwilling witness "Corus Construction" and several hundred other experts have predicted. My oh my. So, how could these buildings have possibly collapsed if the steel never heated beyond 500F??

You can barely bake a cake at 500F, let alone cause a 110-story steel structure to freefall into a pile of smoldering rubble.


Regarding the actual airplane crashes themselves--the question arises: Could the impact have potentially knocked over these buildings, especially in conjunction with the subsequent fires from the jet fuel?

Well, we have already partially answered the questions about fires in a steel structure. But also please understand this-- Jet fuel is NOT conducive to a long, slow penetrating burn. It evaporates very quickly. Try cooking your hamburgers out on the barbecue over a bowl of ignited fuel. The result would be a huge fireball and slightly singed raw meat. You'd find yourself quickly reverting back to those 'slow burn' charcoal briquettes!

Jet fuel, which is essentially nothing but kerosene, burns off at a very low 500-700F. The NIST has conceded through 'mumblings' in the back pages of their obscure reports...that the jet fuel was gone within a few short minutes. The only fuels that remained were the much more 'pedestrian' paper materials, couches and curtains etc.

And by the way, in the above photo we're looking at about 80% of this plane's fuel instantly evaporating in the form of this huge fireball (about a third of a mile in circumference)...and yet this building was the first of the two to collapse into a pile of rubble, fifty-one minutes later. How does the "jet-fuel-melted-the buildings" crowd explain that one? Very little fuel made it inside this particular building.


As far as any structural damage from the airplanes crashing into the buildings-- these structures were specifically designed to absorb the impact of a jet airliner travelling at a full 600 mph. It's important to understand that virtually ALL modern steel-structured skyscrapers are built with 600-800% strength redundancy.

The engineering firm which built these Towers put out a three-page white paper entitled “Salient points with regard to the structural design of the World Trade Center towers”, February 1964, from the Port Authority New York, and filed with the NIST.


"The Buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

See larger image.


Additionally, back in the 1960's the Engineering News Record magazine published a number of articles on the design and construction of the World Trade Center. The article "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings" quotes lead architect John Skilling:

"Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." (John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964)

That is twenty-fold strength redundancy! The building was built so solidly, it could lose 90% of it's strength...and still have double the strength required to remain intact.

Then there was the analysis of architect and construction manager Frank DeMartini (above), as high an authority on the WTC's structural engineering as you could possibly have. He was tasked with the rebuilding and repair of the Towers after the 1993 bombings.

He asserted that the buildings would be able absorb multiple airliner it would be comparable to a pencil poking through the wiring on a screen door: The overall structural integrity would remain intact.


Interestingly, after having first tried to float the idea that half or more of the core columns had been severed, the NIST has now conceded (albeit in some obscure reports virtually unknown to the public)...that only 14%
of the North Tower's core columns were severed upon impact.

And the South Tower, according to revisionists probably had far fewer columns severed, if any. In that instance, the plane hit the building off center, missing most or all of the core columns.

The NIST also concedes that the columns around the outside edges of the buildings (the perimeter columns) experienced anywhere from 0% up to only 25% increase in stress and load-bearing after being damaged from the impact.

So let's run the numbers:

If the perimeter columns had 2000% strength redundancy and lost at most (and only at the points of maximum damage) 25% of their strength....what's left if you take away 25 percent (a quarter) of that 2000 percent?

Answer: There is still 1500 percent strength redundancy remaining.

And if there was only at most a 14% loss among the core columns which had 600-800% strength redundancy...where does that leave the structural integrity of these buildings?

Answer: Light years removed from ANY sort of structural failure.


This is another one of these notions that has been (in my view) deliberately floated around, and has taken on a life of its matter that it is devoid of scientific validity:

Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both mechanical engineering and manufacturing engineering, disproves this notion. He has gone to the trouble of calculating the actual weight of the floors from the upper sections in a theoretical collapse down onto the lower portions of the two structures.

In short, he demonstrates convincingly, using mathematics and physics...that these top portions could have never caused a successive "pancaking" of the lower portions of these buildings. Not even close. In fact, "pancaking" is such an absurd notion that even the 'powers that be' have retreated from such a notion. This is due in no small part to the Gordon Ross report.

Ross demonstrated that in order to achieve even a theoretical 'collapse', one had to first alter the scenario dramatically from the actual reality of what had happened on 9/11:  As if there had been such extremely high fire and steel temperatures, that the upper sections were able to collapse downwards without resistance, in a literal freefall...a scenario that did not exist at the WTC.

He then calculated the amount of energy with which the upper portions would strike down upon the lower sections. He also carefully calculated the amount of resistance from the lower section...and how much of the collapse energy would be absorbed by resistance from the lower structure during that first initial impact from the top section of the structure.

What did he come up with? --Even using very liberal numbers, he has calculated the upper sections would have lost about 66% of their kinetic energy just on the first encounter alone...leaving not enough energy to break down through even one more story (level) of the structure.

Much, much less, is there any earthly or mathematical way to explain the upper structure plowing down through 90-100 stories of undamaged full-strength steel core structure at freefall speed. It does not add up. Not even close.

You may be surprised at how much of his material you can understand. All these revisionist experts are striving to speak in plain layman's terms. They want the world to understand what has happened here.

And on this question of the top portion crushing down and through all of the undamaged lower structure...I had earlier suggested that even a young child can see through some of this:

When I asked my 10-year-old daughter which of the two 20-story sections (in the illustration above) hanging from those cranes would reach the ground first, if they were to be dropped--the one hanging from the left crane or the right crane...she took one look at the depiction and pointed to the right crane without any hesitation. Imagine that-- a child unraveling the "mysteries" of 9/11.

Astoundingly, government apologists have insisted the building section of the left was somehow able to push down through those 90 stories of full strength steel core structuring at virtual 'freefall' speed...reaching the ground almost at the same moment as the building section hanging from the right crane. Can anyone looking at this depiction fail to see the utter absurdity of such a claim? Only placed explosives could have allowed the tops of the buildings to fall through the entire structure virtually unimpeded.


The real coup de grace the simple yet devastating fact that...there WERE NO top portions of these buildings available to create this alleged "crushing" pressure.

Watch any of the huge numbers of collapse videos of either of the buildings...(read carefully now)--the tops of the two buildings disintegrated within seconds of the beginning of the collapse process.

The tops of both buildings pulverized and were turned into rubble before the building had collapsed even three or four floors...and all of that rubble and debris fell off the sides of the buildings, down to the ground.

Now...this virtually instantaneous pulverization in itself is huge evidence of explosive destruction. But even more revealing--when the tops of the buildings disintegrated in the first few seconds and the resulting debris fell (or rather, was explosively ejected and hurled) off the sides of building, there was no longer any significant weight being brought to bear.

Where was there any of this claimed downward crushing pressure? It was completely gone.

The official 9/11 explanations are a complete farce. See below: The top part of the building is being turned into rubble within two to four seconds.

And one more for the road: Any number of explosions and explosive "squibs" (a commonly used term among professional demolitonists) could be seen during the collapse of the three buildings.

Government defenders have tried to argue these explosive puffs of smoke were only the result of the various floor slabs collapsing and compressing the air out the sides of the buildings.

Below you can clearly see these huge explosions emanating just a split second before the building began to collapse. And that's just the point:

Look carefully--the building has not collapsed so much as an inch. There is therefore no way to explain these emerging explosions...other than that they were explosions. These buildings were blown up.

Are you starting to understand the hue and cry coming from an army of engineering experts? But wait..there's more.


ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? You can email me at

Or go to my new "current events" commentary blog:
The New Jerusalem Chronicle



INTRODUCTION: Connecting current events to "end times" a way you've never seen before.

CHAPTER ONE: Hidden Luciferians in American culture, politics, academia...and in the Evangelical community.

CHAPTER TWO: The Kay Arthur/ Al Denson/ Robert Schuller/ Star Trek/ Oprah Winfrey Connection??

CHAPTER THREE: A Closer Look At 9/11.

CHAPTER FOUR: An Even Closer Look At 9/11.

CHAPTER FIVE: 9/11--Some Parting Shots.

CHAPTER SIX: A Closer Look At The Bush Family.

CHAPTER SEVEN: The Franklin Cover-Up / Bohemian Grove Connection.

CHAPTER EIGHT: Entering the Netherworld.

CHAPTER NINE: Hurricanes, earthquakes, famine, pestilence, disease...and more.

CHAPTER TEN: The Pre-Trib Rapture Problem.

CHAPTER ELEVEN: A Grand Tour of the Devil's Crime Syndicate.

CHAPTER TWELVE: Part Two of the Grand Tour.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Part Three--Wolves in Sheep's clothing.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Part Four--More Wolves.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Tracking the Syndicate Through History.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Tracking the Syndicate--Part Two.


CONCLUSION: "Happily Ever After".

No comments: