Warning: This article may contain traces of satire.
Only one skyscraper in history has ever collapsed completely due to fire. Fires are fairly common in skyscrapers but even the worst fires usually leave the building’s supporting structure intact. The four recent skyscraper fires in Dubai were spectacular but the buildings have all been repaired and reopened. Several floors of Moscow’s half-completed Federation Tower East blazed in 2012, but construction resumed in 2014.
Fire raged for over 24 hours on 17 floors of the East Twin Tower in Caracas in 2004, but with its partner Twin Tower it remains South America’s second tallest skyscraper.
Five floors of the First Interstate Tower in Los Angeles were gutted by fire in 1988, but the building (now the Aon Center) remains in use.
Even partial collapses are rare in tall buildings. In 2005 Madrid’s Windsor Tower became a textbook towering inferno resulting in the partial collapse of its upper ten stories.
But the building’s central core and twenty lower stories remained standing. If you accept the convention that a skyscraper must be at least 40 stories or 150 metres tall, the Windsor wasn’t a skyscraper.
There are more than 3500 skyscrapers around the world. Hundreds more have been demolished after decades of use. Only one has ever collapsed completely due to fire.
You might think this would earn it the kind of notoriety that we reserve for Titanics and Hindenburgs. Perhaps we overlook it because the disaster involved no loss of life. The 47 storey, 190 metre Salomon Brothers Building had fires on several floors, fires that by official accounts lasted no more than 20 minutes in any location. Yet the building collapsed like a house of cards, as neatly as in those videos we have all seen of controlled demolitions. Not a single wall or pillar remained standing; just a pile of rubble to be carted away.
Let’s look at the coincidences. The first is that the Salomon Brothers Building collapsed on September 11 2001: the same day as the 911 terrorist attacks. The Twin Towers collapsed on the morning of that fateful day.
The Salomon Brothers Building collapsed at 5:20 pm New York time, as if, by some mysterious energetic connection, it came down in sympathy with the Twin Towers. One might speculate that the connection was strong because the Salomon Brothers Building was actually in New York City. But the story is way, way weirder than that. The Salomon Brothers Building was not just in NYC, it was part of the World Trade Center complex. The Salomon Brothers Building was the common name of World Trade Center Building 7.
Wait a minute, you might say. If Building 7 was part of the World Trade Center it was presumably destroyed as part of the terrorist attack. But that’s not the case. Not according to the official account. According to the official account Building 7 was brought down by fires, fires that had all the characteristics of ordinary office fires. The building was not hit by a plane or by major pieces of plane. It was damaged by the collapse of World Trade Center 1 (the North Tower), but the damage was superficial and didn’t compromise the structural integrity of the building. That’s the official conclusion, not just my opinion.
The fires in Building 7 were presumably caused in some way by the other events of 911. But fire is fire, whether it’s started by falling masonry or faulty electrics. If a 47 storey building in Melbourne or Sydney fell flat after a few minor fires there would be a national outcry. The behaviour of Building 7 is no less extraordinary for having happened amid the larger events of 911.
The totality of its collapse was not the only strange thing about Building 7’s demise. For two and a half seconds the upper floors of the building plummeted in freefall, which means the structure below had not only been weakened but had completely disintegrated. The building fell symmetrically and folded neatly in on itself like a closing flower.
The lesson seems to be that if you want to bring a tall building down with surgical precision, set fire to a few random chairs and filing cabinets.
Logic compels us to suspect that there must be a deeper connection between the Building 7 collapse and the terror attacks. Perhaps the World Trade Center complex was poorly built? The official inquiry found no evidence of this, and no charges have been laid against the architects or construction companies. Perhaps the Twin Tower collapses damaged Building 7’s foundations? The seismic record says it’s highly unlikely. Was lack of fire-fighting water a factor? Fire fighters fought the fires for hours, and with or without water the fires were short-lived.
Perhaps explosives were involved? A bomb exploded in the North Tower of the World Trade Center in 1993. The Building 7 collapse had all the hallmarks of an explosive-induced demolition. Explosions were reported on 911 by numerous eyewitnesses and recorded on numerous video soundtracks. Traces of explosives were found by researchers in dust from the World Trade Center collapses.
But explosives were never officially found because US officials didn’t look for explosives. They didn’t look because, they said, there was no evidence that explosives had been used. There was no evidence because they didn’t look. Explosives don’t fit the official story.
Fifteen years after the attacks a debate is now raging in the United States over the possible release of 28 hitherto censored pages from a 2003 congressional report on 911.
Meanwhile more than 2000 accredited architects and engineers have called for a new and independent inquiry into the collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7.
These developments are a reminder that questions remain as to what really happened on 911.
While those questions remain there can be no coherent explanation of why the one-in-thousands event of a total fire-induced skyscraper collapse should coincide in time and place with the worst terror attack in modern times.
I guess you would have to describe it as the mother of all coincidences.
LINKS
Evidence of explosives in 911 dust:
http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7
Debate over release of 28 redacted pages:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-report-steve-kroft/
Architects and Engineers:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth
*Martin Hawes is a Tasmanian-based writer, photographer and wilderness management consultant. He became sceptical of the official 911 account after watching video of the 6.5-second collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Extensive research has convinced him that there is overwhelming evidence that all three World Trade Center towers were brought down with explosives. His partner Deb, who was in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks, shares this view.
• The Independent: Saudi Arabia, 9/11, and the secret papers that could ignite a diplomatic war Twenty-eight secret pages of a report locked away in a room in the Capitol in Washington lie in the centre of a crisis between America and Saudi Arabia which threatens to have severe and widespread repercussions. The US Congress is considering legislation which would enable the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, presented by the West as its most valuable ally in the Middle East, over alleged links with al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the attacks on New York and Washington. The issue had cast a long shadow over the recent visit of President Barack Obama to Riyadh, with the Saudis threatening to sell off $750bn of American assets they hold if the bill is passed by Congress …
An Innocent Bystander
April 30, 2016 at 15:05
Meanwhile back in Tasmania, a very dim man who has the intelligence of less than 2% of the population has been incarcerated for 20 years, without trial, for a terrible crime.
To imagine this fellow could shoot dead 20 people from the hip with an assault rifle in 90 seconds stretches common sense. There are very few people in the world with that type of skill.
In Nazi Germany the Reichstag was burnt down and the blame was made on an equally dim man, only for the authorities to be found complicit much later.
I imagine that any person with an IQ of 67 could be persuaded to admit to any crime, if they were given a balloon or a box of chocolates. The word for this is discombobulation and it means that confusion is a major factor in an agreement. Even his lawyer admitted on TV not so long ago that he told the idiot to plead guilty and thus he was not offered any proper legal representation.
I cannot imagine that a man with an IQ this low could organise and do this crime alone. I can imagine that their was a very emotional cover up and I can imagine that there may be motives other than an idiots behaviour.
The idiot had no prior record other than rumours that surfaced conveniently, immediately after this heinous crime. Typical methodology for blackening someone’s name and denying that person natural justice.
After watching the Tasmanian bureaucracy cover up idiocies for the last twenty years from the big things like healthcare and educational standards, sale of energy, low dam levels to the Tasmanian Police’s MV Fortescue and the decisions on forestry and just plain everyday stupidity. I can easily imagine that blaming an idiot for incompetence on that murderous day twenty years ago, was the easy way out and until there is a trial, a Royal Commission and or an independent inquiry the same questions will always remain as above about 911. Was there anyone else involved and were any lessons to be learnt?
De Coda
April 30, 2016 at 18:07
It wouldnt matter if this was common knowledge, the Government empires hold sway over the masses with their monopoly over violence and myth making machine. Who is to stop the insatabilities of absolute power?
Ted Mead
May 1, 2016 at 13:12
From an Engineering perspective.
The structural steel main-frames of modern skyscrapers are generally composed of a network of vertical girders, either welded box construction or sectional fabrications that are plate-bolted or flange-bolted. Each of these vertical joints, connected by horizontal beams and/or reinforced concrete spans, would contain numerous large tensile connecting bolts combining a shear/load-strength of thousands of tonnes.
The possibility of thousands of these support /joint frames all failing at once under load is virtually impossible. The only example of severe bolt-shear I recall was in the case of the West Gate Bridge span collapse. That was due to overloading and stressing an unsupported sectional structure during construction.
Steel joints could possibly fail if subjected to high bearing loads concurrent with intense concentrated heat over a prolonged period. The amount of heat produced by aviation fuel as in 9/11 scenario seems insufficient to create a structural failure in such a short period of time.
Most of the aviation fuel would have been ignited at the point of contact, hence any severe heat would be concentrated to the area around the point of impact, and therefore if the building was weakened by heat it should have toppled from that point.
There are numerous cases world-wide where skyscrapers have been gutted from intense internal fires, yet their structural frames still remained intact.
In my opinion – none of the buildings in the World Trade Centre precinct could have fallen solely from fire related causes.
Huon Resident
May 1, 2016 at 23:17
Oh dear. TT is starting to attract conspiracy theorists.
John Maddock
May 2, 2016 at 00:07
I’m inclined to agree, #4.
I remember a TV doco on an analysis of why the structure failed, and the salient points made (as I remember) were:
1. Steel trusses supported the floors, spanning from the central service areas to the perimeter frame. The fire resistant cladding on many was in a poor state, & work had started on repairs. Thus the trusses were a weak link.Apparently NY city firemen have a saying “Never trust a truss”.
2. A stream of sparks coming from the side of one of the buildings away from the impact were identified as burning aluminium. Apparently, in the presence of water & the burning fuel, this can happen and intensify the heat generated.
3. Once the trusses under one floor failed, the additional weight imposed on the next one lower created a chain reaction, causing both buildings to collapse vertically, just as in a planned demolition.
I have heard nothing about the other building claimed to have collapsed.
Seems to me that if there was a conspiracy & planned a priori naughtiness, someone involved would have leaked by now.
JV
Martin Hawes
May 2, 2016 at 00:11
Huon Resident, are you suggesting that conspiracies never happen? If it is true that Osama bin Laden conspired to attack America, was not 911 the outcome of a conspiracy?
Simon Warriner
May 2, 2016 at 01:18
re 4, what is far worse is that there are still people who are too stupid to recognise patterns and ask questions.
As for that insult you tried to deploy in pursuit of stopping independent thought, what is wrong with looking at a set of circumstances and asking who might benefit?
Isn’t that how every crime that is properly investigated gets solved?
Martin Hawes
May 2, 2016 at 14:48
Re #5. You are right that in the Twin Towers, steel trusses supported the floors between the central core and the external steel frame.
This was not the case with Building 7, which was supported by a lattice with 81 vertical columns. So the truss theory is irrelevant as far as Building 7 is concerned.
After 911 a full-scale replica of a Twin Tower floor truss was subjected to a furnace test by Underwriters Laboratories. The truss sagged but did not collapse.
The ‘pancake theory’ of successive floor collapse that you describe in your point #3 was promoted officially for a while but is no longer supported even in official accounts. In any case, a chain reaction of floor-truss collapses would not have collapsed the central cores of the towers.
It was a stream of molten metal, not of sparks, that flowed from the South Tower minutes before it collapsed. The stream was bright orange, the colour of molten steel, whereas molten aluminium is silvery.
US authorities tried to claim that the stream was orange because it had little bits of burning organic material embedded in it. Anyone who believes that can believe anything.
You say the Twin Towers collapsed just as in a planned demolition. That’s true of Building 7 but what happened to the Twin Towers is nothing like any planned demolition that I’ve seen.
The Twin Towers did not collapse. They were blown to smithereens. Take a long, hard look at a high resolution, slow-motion video of the North Tower collapse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc
You say, ‘if there was a conspiracy & planned a priori naughtiness, someone involved would have leaked by now’. I think ‘premeditated mass slaughter’ might be phrase you are looking for.
Have you heard of Operation Gladio? The truth has barely begun to emerge now, over 60 years after its inception.
Doug Nichols
May 2, 2016 at 16:55
There are (unfortunately) plenty of websites where this conspiracy stuff gets published, I just wish TT were not one of them.
I have just one question (the answer to which does not particularly interest me, actually, as it is based on a hypothetical account of events!):
If it was a US conspiracy and the plan was to have planes flown into the twin towers and then for the towers to be demolished with explosives, there must have been a motive for doing this. I believe the idea is that the perceived unprovoked attack would provide a justification for going to war. (Am I right?) If so, yes, I can see that it would.
My question is this: why was the apparent attack and subsequent collapse of the twin towers in fact considered NOT to provide adequate justification? Why was it considered also necessary to blow up Building 7? Why would Building 7 tip the balance?
Huon Resident
May 2, 2016 at 23:59
Come on #6, don’t be deliberately obtuse.
Simon Warriner
May 3, 2016 at 00:15
re 9, having declared you are not interested in the answer, you ask a question. Why should any of us bother to make any effort to provide an answer after that admission?
Go do the research yourself.
Ample reasons certainly appear to exist beyond simply increasing the justification for the numerous actions that followed.
Jon Sumby
May 3, 2016 at 00:26
Re No. 9, Doug Nichols, Building 7 had some offices occupied by FEMA and in one of these rooms there were the bodies of a young boy and two firemen. The building had to be destroyed to hide those bodies and the evidence that theY were infected with an alien organism.
The ‘Building 7’ case forms part of the plot of ‘X-Files: Fight for the Future’, which uses a popular film to get the evidence into the public eye, albeit hidden in plain sight as so-called ‘fiction’.
I jest of course, but hey, it is a good a conspiracy theory as any other relating to the terrorist attack of 9-11.
I share your dismay about TT running a BS conspiracy theory article, since ‘BS attracts BS’ and other conspiracy theorists will quickly learn that there is another website that they can use as a platform for publishing their ‘AboveTopSecret’ type conspiracies.
It also degrades TT as visitors seeing the site hosting such a conspiracy theory will plop it into the ‘wacky website’ category and ignore it thereafter.
For TT to try and establish itself as a ‘website of record’ it must leave behind such discredited fringe stories.
If not, I have a great story about the Lizard People Illuminati who are the true – but hidden – overlords of the Earth and their agreement with the Rothschild/Jewish conspiracy for a New World Order, see:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1861029,00.html
Doug Nichols
May 3, 2016 at 01:59
#12, I am one of the lizard people.
Martin Hawes
May 3, 2016 at 13:25
Re#10: As you found my questions at #6 obtuse perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by the term ‘conspiracy theorists’.
William Boeder.
May 3, 2016 at 15:54
The facts delivered by the following link will lead to further evidences proving that the Osama Bin Laden engagement was a fiction of the American false flag slaughter of its own for the sake of destroying a vast amount of documented legal evidence against some of the largest corporations in America as well as for other strategic reasons.
A study of the list of those not in occupation of the buildings at that time becomes a summary of the plot insiders.
Who was it that fired the low level missile into the main accounting centre of the Pentagon, as no Jet Plane could successfully negotiate in and around all the towers, poles, extensive Aerial transmitters and receivers that became a wall of impenetrable vertical obstructions.
Get with the facts please, those who believe the Osama Bin Laden causation, go attend George W’s and George Senior’s next birthday party.
Larry Epstein received 2 insurance payouts for his World Trade buildings, it was he himself that gave the order to pull building 7.
Sufficient research will enable the facts to be realized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQZdJMv8Fvw
Doug Nichols
May 3, 2016 at 20:26
Rubbish William, #15. Type “richard gage debunk” into google and have a read of some of the other information there is out there about this guy and his theories.
William Boeder.
May 4, 2016 at 02:50
Doug, whether you do not want to believe the advices of others or do not want to believe in substantiated fact, that is up to yourself.
I have viewed a great number of videos submitted to You Tube that validate the false flag claim.
It is up to you if you want to believe the George W version, I cannot accept the (non) credibility of this lying Skunk President.
His off-sider was Dick Cheney, otherwise known as Darth Vader, Have you ever listened to Dick Cheney?
Martin Hawes
May 4, 2016 at 15:25
Re #15: You say Richard Gage has been ‘debunked’. His debunkers have been debunked in turn.
What can’t be debunked are the established facts. Here are some of them:
1. Only five military aircraft were deployed during the 109 minutes between the first hijacking and the last plane crash on 911. Two were ordered into a holding pattern off the coast. Three headed out to sea.
2. No disciplinary action was taken against any of the military and intelligence officers who were responsible for the failure of America’s intelligence and air defences on 911. In fact, many of them were promoted.
3. After being told ‘America is under attack’, President George W Bush sat in a school room for seven minutes and did nothing.
4. Bush was in an undefended, publicly known location, yet during those seven minutes his security detail made no effort to move him to a safer location.
5. Explosive squibs are clearly visible on numerous videos of the Twin Tower ‘collapses’. Some of them are dozens of storeys below the level at which the buildings are disintegrating.
6. Huge pieces of the Twin Towers weighing many tonnes can be seen blasting off sideways at speeds measured up to 100 kph as the buildings fell.
7. No traces have been found of over 1100 of the victims of 911. Of the victims who have been identified, most were shredded into tiny fragments. Speaking soon after the attack, New York City’s Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch stated that many of the victims had been ‘vaporised’.
8. Numerous observers including New York Governor George Pataki reported that very little concrete remained at Ground Zero. Most of the buildings’ three-quarters of a million tonnes of concrete had been pulverised to a fine powder that settled over lower Manhattan.
9. The fires at Ground Zero raged for months despite being doused with millions of gallons of water.
10. The agency that conducted the official inquiry in the collapse of Building 7, NIST, initially denied that the building had fallen at freefall acceleration as this would imply it had lost 100% of its structural integrity.
11. NIST’s final report ignores the implication of freefall despite demonstrating that the downward acceleration of the upper stories equalled that of gravity to within 0.1 per cent.
12. On the day before 911 Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld admitted to Congress that the Pentagon had mislaid $2.3 trillion.
13. No video evidence has ever been released of the passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, a building bristling with security cameras.
14. Five people were arrested on 911 in connection with the events of that day. They were all Israeli.
15. Following their release one of the five Israelis stated on Israeli television that they had been sent to the US to document the 911 attacks.
16. The commissioner and deputy commissioner of the 911 Commission stated that the commission was ‘set up to fail’.
17. The day after 911, when other private aircraft were grounded, the Bush administration allowed a private jet to fly around the US picking up members of the bin Laden family.
18. In the following days 24 members of the bin Laden family and at least 160 Saudis were allowed to leave the United States. Most were not interviewed, let alone interrogated, before leaving.
19. Osama bin Laden repeatedly denied responsibility for the 911 attacks.
20. The list of crimes for which Osama bin Laden was charged on the FBI’s ‘Most wanted’ list
never included the 911 attacks.
William Boeder.
May 4, 2016 at 20:44
Martin Hawes, thank you for the validations you have provided to the small number of sceptics.
Neither you nor I seek to gain some sort of benefit for this exposure to the truth of these shocking events on that fateful day.
Another coincidental fact is that George Bush Senior was at that very moment engaged with members of, or representatives of, the Bin Laden family financial investment people, to have the Bin Laden’s invest in another one of the schemes that suited old man Bush.
George Senior was just as much a part of this conspired hostile event (within America’s own National boundaries) so he George Senior held the whip-hand as he already knew the facts relative to (9/11) and its looming danger for all persons Bin Laden in their futures.
Jon Sumby
May 4, 2016 at 23:11
What a mix up of innuendo and errors.
I’ll only correct a few of them because I can’t really be bothered. The 9-11 debate is historical now; no one really cares. It has become a bit like the continuing conspiracy discussion about ‘Who Shot JFK?’ The world has moved on; since then there’s been two Gulf Wars, the Arab Spring, the capture of Gaddafi, Syria, Fukushima, etc.
20. The list of crimes for which Osama bin Laden was charged on the FBI’s ‘Most wanted’ list never included the 911 attacks.
Of course not, that is perfectly plain. ‘Most Wanted’ lists are for people who are charged with a crime but remain at large. Bin Laden was on the list charged with several terrorist offenses but was only ever a suspect for 9-11. Suspects are not put on ‘most wanted’ lists as a matter of legal principle
19. Osama bin Laden repeatedly denied responsibility for the 911 attacks.
This is a really old, so old I can date it to before 2004. Just before the US 2004 election bin Laden released a video statement of him talking to camera in which he said that he was responsible for ordering the 9-11 attack. QED
18. In the following days 24 members of the bin Laden family and at least 160 Saudis were allowed to leave the United States. Most were not interviewed, let alone interrogated, before leaving.
If you are going to push a conspiracy theory, try and get your facts right. The total number of members of the Saudi Royal Family, diplomats, etc. who flew out was 140 (including the 24 family members) not 184.
The aircraft were searched, the people were searched and screened and their names put through the ‘no-fly’ names list. ‘Interviewed’? ‘Interrogated? Really, why? This phrasing makes it sound like these people were criminals on the run, terrorists making an escape, no, not in reality.
17. The day after 911, when other private aircraft were grounded, the Bush administration allowed a private jet to fly around the US picking up members of the bin Laden family.
Actually, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), the organisation that banned all flights, has stated that the flights happened after the FAA ended the ban on flights… A plane flying after a ban, nothing unusual.
14. Five people were arrested on 911 in connection with the events of that day. They were all Israeli.
This myth comes from the anti-Semitic branch of 9-11 conspiracy theorist. They believe that 9-11 was orchestrated by Jews intent on progressing their plans for world domination.
Yes, there were five young Israeli men arrested for suspicious behaviour on the day, but the FBI quickly determined that:
a) their behaviour was not in fact suspicious, and,
b) they had no knowledge (or foreknowledge) of the attack.
They were charged and deported for working paid jobs while having tourist visas.
15. Following their release one of the five Israelis stated on Israeli television that they had been sent to the US to document the 911 attacks.
I have seen that interview and read the transcript. This myth is completely bogus, it rewords and twists what was said.
The person who called the police on them stated that she was in her apartment when a neighbour started shouting, she went to her window and saw smoke from the tower, she got her binoculars and had a look. After a few minutes she noticed a white van pull in and the young men climb on the roof and filming the event. She thought they looked Arabic so called the cops.
In the interview the young man was asked about why they did this. He said, ‘Our purpose was to document the event’. Every single person pointing a camera at the World Trade Centre on that day was ‘documenting the event’.
When seen through non-conspiracy theory eyes, they were doing what everyone else was doing.
I might add that this myth forms part of the anti-Semitic 9-11 conspiracy theories.
13. No video evidence has ever been released of the passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, a building bristling with security cameras.
Another old myth. Yes, there is security camera footage of the plane impact
I could go on but I would like to introduce a bit of a conundrum. From what I have seen of your argument, you seem to be saying that 7WTC collapsed because of a controlled demolition by explosives.
More importantly, it has been calculated that the amount of explosives required to bring down that building would generate an explosive sound of over 140 dB and would be heard for up to a mile. Yet there was no sound of an explosion in all the footage, the building simply falls to the ground. How is that? Silent explosives?
If you believe in a controlled demolition you must explain this. To give you a guide, here is a 38 second clip of an office tower being demolished, filmed from a helicopter with the explosions clearly audible over the helicopter noise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2E_m7l2Rww
Doug Nichols
May 5, 2016 at 18:32
Re #18, Further to #20’s asking for an explanation of the lack of any sound, I refer back to my original comment for another conundrum.
You have to explain *why* building 7 had to be demolished. Why was the destruction of the twin towers not enough?
Why did we never heard G.W.Bush, or anyone else (duly playing their part in the conspiracy), refer to building 7 and the clinching case that it provided? Why didn’t he ever say something along the lines of “had those planes only destroyed the twin towers we might not feel so bad, but since building 7 also came down, well, that does it, it’s definitely war now”? Why? I’ll tell you why. Because the whole idea is ridiculous! Of course just the two towers would have been enough. There would never have been any reason whatsoever to make the conspiracy even bigger by involving another building.
All this whole silly business about building 7 proves is that there was quite obviously no conspiracy. No explosives. Nothing that can’t be explained by the mainstream explanation of events.
I still feel that you should take this discussion to some other site. This is not what TT should be about.
Jon Sumby
May 5, 2016 at 20:25
Re No. 21, Amen to that!
Simon Warriner
May 5, 2016 at 22:26
re 21, 22. Actually, NO.
What needs to be explained is how a building not impacted by aircraft collapsed in a manner entirely consistent with a controlled demolition.
Other than that, the bleating about something that upsets their carefully calibrated mainstream world views is absolutely bloody priceless.
Ignore them, Linz.
Martin Hawes
May 6, 2016 at 01:23
Re #20. You say, ‘The 9-11 debate is historical now; no one really cares’. That would be news to the members of US Congress who are lobbying for the release of the 28 pages, among others.
There is security camera footage of an impact on the Pentagon. The footage, however, does not show a plane.
The myth that no explosions were heard during the collapse of Building 7 and its lead-up has been comprehensively demolished:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&rel=0
If the FBI ‘quickly determined’ that the five Israelis were just ‘doing what everyone else was doing’, why were the men held in custody for 71 days?
You point out that bin Laden was charged with several terrorist offenses but was only ever a suspect for 911. Why wasn’t he charged for 911?
Why did bin Laden deny responsibility for 911 for nearly three years? The point of terrorist attacks is presumably to pressure governments to achieve some kind of political goal. Why mount the biggest terrorist attack in modern history only to wash your hands of it?
Re # 21: You ask, ‘Why was the destruction of the twin towers not enough? Good question. Why bother with the Pentagon? And Flight 93?
You say, ‘You have to explain *why* building 7 had to be demolished’. You mean I have to have complete knowledge of the motives for every aspect of the crime before pointing out that the official explanation is implausible?