by Dave Lewit*

Maggie Zhou and I—a molecular biologist and a social psychologist— were challenged to find out what MIT engineers think of the collapse of the World Trade Center’s (WTC) Building 7. Armed with a portable player and a 5-minute “Building 7″ segment of the hour-long DVD “9/11 Mysteries” (2007), we descended on the student center cafeteria and professors’ offices in the Civil & Environmental Engineering department. We were driven by Professor Noam Chomsky’s disdain for “the 911 Truth industry” and their “insane conspiracy theory” which implies that the fall of the Twin Towers of New York’s World Trade Center in the aerial attacks of 2001 might be an “inside job”. He challenged his audience in a recent lecture to go to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and ask the experts. So we did.

Maggie and I were concerned mostly with the collapse of the 47-story Building 7 which was not hit by an aircraft but by some hurtling parts of the exploding towers, sustaining small fires fueled evidently by diesel oil stored in the building along with emergency oxygen supplies. The building suddenly collapsed several hours after being evacuated following the hits on the towers. It’s top buckled downward (“crimp”) and then went totally down at near free-fall speed,neatly into its footprint, generating huge clouds of toxic dust from its constituent materials. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6—closer to the towers—were more seriously damaged, and burned, but none collapsed. Building 7 was virtually unknown to the public outside New York City and ignored by the mainstream media.

Exploring Student Opinion

Before approaching the professors, we tried out our DVD with several pairs of young people having lunch. One engineering undergrad watched for a minute and then lectured us on fire-weakened steel and “exploding oxygen”—similar to explanations offered in reports by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The second engineering undergrad was silent, but also rejected the idea of controlled demolition by set explosives. They both wanted more information on where the stored diesel and oxygen tanks in building 7 were.

At the next table two toxic waste removal workers under contract to MIT fully accepted the idea of controlled demolition, noting the extremely improbable form of the collapse. At yet another table the one mechanical engineering student who was not preoccupied with his own laptop watched carefully and rated the collapse “probably” a controlled demolition.

Now come the professors. It being around class time, most of the offices were locked, but we managed to talk with three professors in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and one more the following day. The first, evidently retired, said he had no expertise on any of the WTC buildings, but offered that burning office paper provided enough heat to weaken the steel skeleton of the towers, yielding to the weight of floors collapsing from above. He said he knew nothing about Building 7, but referred us to Professor Eduardo Kausel who had studied the Tower collapses. We approached the department head, who was on his way to teach a class, and he also referred us to Kausel, saying that Kausel was the only one in the department who had studied the WTC collapses.

An Engineering Department’s Expert

This was an experience. The award-winning professor Kausel, who teaches structural dynamics, had been shocked to see the towers falling on TV, and within hours was writing a paper on this, finished it within a few days, and circulated it among his colleagues, who “liked it”. This paper, accessible in the online book The Towers Lost and Beyond (May 2002) which Kausel edited, apparently framed his investigation of other sources and energized his conversation with us. The burden of his explanation was the fire-generated “pancaking” theory which, as a consultant, he shared with NIST—as well as The New York Times —which featured it and which became the basic explanation of the official US investigative commission.

The sounds described by firemen as sequential explosions around the perimeter of a tower Kausel attributed to the “ratchet-like” (approximately 9 per second) noise of floors hitting one another at nearly free-fall speed. He was very brief with this, but good-naturedly belabored the craziness of science fiction and movie kooks who want to believe that explosives were planted and used to bring the towers down. We gently stated that we were not sci-fi or movie fans but were PhD scientists looking for sound explanations of any anomalies that have been put forward by many architects and engineers. That made no difference. “It’s a free country,” he repeated. “People believe all sorts of things. They can believe what they want.”

Regarding Building 7, in response to our questions and not having watched our DVD, Kausel speculated that the specially heavy floor on which the mayor’s emergency control center was located might have forced collapse of the floors below, rather than a partial collapse. He said he did not investigate Building 7, and had no curiosity as to why it collapsed, or what questions other people have been raising about it, because he already has his explanations for 9/11 and the twin towers, and as far as he’s concerned, the matter is closed.[1] He ignored the squibs and flashes visible in later-appearing videos. He deflected mention of recent nanothermite findings indicating high-level explosives.

Years later MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky, annoyed by frequent e-mailers and not willing to discuss the physical evidence of 9/11, was saying much the same thing as his engineering colleagues, perhaps taking their word for it. In conversation, one gets the sense that Professor Kausel was the passing bandwagon of MIT on this issue, having been loaded with overall explanatory responsibility where only a few others issued more limited speculations, having approached the matter theoretically with sparse data on only a few available parameters.
Granted that Prof. Kausel had students waiting to see him, he seemed dismissive or defensive — mocking fanciful and prejudiced laypersons almost as a conclusion—rather than being open to evidence of explosives inferred by some practicing engineers and materials scientists studying the emerging evidence such as is reflected in Sofia [Smallstorm’s] “9/11 Mysteries”, and most recently, chemistry professor Niels Harrit’s study of residues of extremely explosive nanothermite in WTC’s dust, online at Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Another Scientist’s View

The fourth MIT professor contacted (by DL alone) was Ted Postol, an award-winning, engineer-physicist professor of Science, Technology and International Security, who has had extensive experience with the US military and has been critical of government and industry distortion of ballistic missile defense capability. Now watching the Building 7 DVD for the first time, he recalled his immediate reaction nine years ago when he saw on TV the first tower coming down: Phone some influential person in New York and tell them to evacuate the second tower immediately! This, because the huge shock waves of the first building collapsing could be transmitted through the ground, weakening the structure of the second tower. If big fires were to break out in the second tower, it too could come down!

Professor Postol had not tried to research the WTC or Building 7 in particular, but offered two hypotheses: one based on fire and the other on explosives. Either might be true. The fire hypothesis would be plausible if the diesel-based fires noted in Building 7 were extensive enough—building up heat over the 6 or more hours before the building collapsed—to soften its shaken steel skeleton at the base. Once the mass of the building above the fires started to move downward, the collapse would likely be immediate and vertical. He did not know enough about the building or the fires to say how the central columns would give way first, as indicated by the crimp in the top floor before the rest of the building came down—a phenomenon critics attribute to timing of explosions by demolition experts.

He agreed that controlled demolition was also possible, but doubted that proof could be kept secret, since a hundred or more workers and agents would have to have been involved in a project of this size. Asked about the squibs—the horizontal spurts of smoke visible in videos below the collapsing upper floors of the towers attributed to explosives by critics—he guessed that they might have resulted from weak spots in the buckling peripheral columns under suddenly increased pressure from falling upper stories. I gather that evidence regarding the temperature, location, and duration of the fires in Building 7 would be critical in any investigation. But who will come forth with evidence?

Professor Postol teaches students in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, and welcomed for possible use in classes the DVDs which I proffered concerning the collapse of all three WTC buildings, and concerning nanothermitic products found in the dust of the collapses.

After 9/11

Causes aside, the consequences are what troubles Postol. Toward the end of our hour he turned the conversation to the development here of a police state—fascism—which gained impetus from the 9/11 events. President Bush was foolish and cowardly to run from his responsibility to return immediately to Washington and deal positively with public panic and military disposition. The ongoing and looming loss of life and liberty far surpass that of 9/11 itself. The event has been exploited by large organizations, he said. Postol is concerned that we work to create real security.

These few hours of seeking out engineering students and professional experts, none of whom examined the remains at Ground Zero, were suggestive though hardly definitive. None of the people we interviewed had seen or read materials of the critics of the official 9/11 commission report. Surely folks in the Alliance for Democracy and many others share Ted Postol’s concerns regarding a police state and the challenge of creating the conditions for real security—with freedom and justice.

However, we believe that the process of justice in the case of 9/11 and of systemic change requires knowing the causes, including who orchestrated the events and why. There was no regular police investigation—amazing with this gigantic crime, but only a reflex military attack in geopolitically strategic Afghanistan supposedly to root out al-Qaeda, the small set of terrorists immediately judged to have trained or directed those who enacted the 9/11 attacks.

I parted from Ted Postol with the suggestion that he review evidence of possible CIA, FBI, and/or Pentagon involvement in this war-and-repression-triggering catastrophe in books by David Ray Griffin (e.g., The New Pearl Harbor Revisited and The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7), John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), and James Douglass (JFK and the Unspeakable).

Postol said that, in his experience with government, there have been unusual cases of maintaining complete secrecy. But let us hope that, in a new investigation with subpoena powers, some insider or insiders—Arab or American—will come forward.


[1] Prof. Kausel did advise on a Master of Engineering thesis by Jeremy A. Kirk entitled “The World Trade Center Disaster: Analysis and Recommendations,” dated June 2005. In it there is no mention of explosives. His review of MIT publications cited nothing beyond the papers in Kausel (2002) on web. Kirk does not cite Griffin or any other critic of the official 9/11 story. Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 was published in March 2004, and his 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions in Nov, 2004.

The article originally appeared in the November-December 2010 issue of BCA Dispatch, the newsletter of the Boston-Cambridge Alliance for Democracy, an affiliate of the national Alliance for Democracy, and is republished here with permission. The article is archived at,

*A 40-year citizen of Boston, Dave Lewit is a social psychologist (PhD University of Minnesota, 1957) formerly at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and other universities.  As cochair and editor at BCA, Lewit led the forum at Boston College leading to collapse of the pro-corporate Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), five workshops at the Boston Social Forum at UMass/Boston, and drafting of “A Common Agreement on Investment and Society” (CAIS—a citizen-group product; see introduction at with link to complete text).  Lewit is currently organizing a working group to conceive a humane systemic alternative to global economic collapse, and writing on liberation psychology.

Leave a Reply

121 thought on “Chomsky’s Challenge: Interviewing MIT Engineers About 9/11”
  1. The strange ignorance of Building 7 on the part of some of these structural engineers, the reaction that says “I’m really just hearing about this for the first time,” indicates lying.

    1. First of all, they are not engineers. They are professors and students. But it doesn’t matter, your point was that they are lying. People not knowing about WTC7 is just as easily explained by our corporate brain-washing mainstream media machine.

  2. but doubted that proof could be kept secret, since a hundred or more workers and agents would have to have been involved in a project of this size.
    This is nonsense. The Manhattan Project employed 100,000 people over three years and nobody had a clue until the first bomb was dropped.

  3. I’m with you, musings. The next step would be to examine the government contracts these MIT engineering professors have.

    1. Just off hand, without even doing that heavy lifting, you can see that they live in an atmosphere of not rocking the boat. But relations with the Defense Department are a given. Here’s a massive military budget, and people who will provide technologies the military can use.

      Another thing about MIT – lots of foreign students and faculty. They do not want to compromise their visas or citizenship. It keeps them mindful of where their bread is buttered – at the Pentagon and other government facilities.

      So this is not about pure reason. It is about authority, some of it very able to chop you to bits if you get out of line. It is also about assuming the mantle of authority, as with Chomsky.

      Are these people the world’s smartest? Maybe, about some things. You have to understand that in such a competitive environment, it isn’t all about your math smarts. Lots of people have them. It’s also about your ability to be a team player. There’s a whole generation I once knew who died off. They were more original, more rough and ready, and more willing to resist authority. Even so, they depended on US government contracts. I used to see Daniel Ellsberg demonstrating every Monday morning in front of one the buildings leased by MIT, where missile launchers were designed. He had a large group around him. Nobody thought he was a “nut” or said so. But he was largely ignored. Still, there is no one like that on campus anymore. I avoid the place. I no longer think it is full of white knights on chargers if it ever was.

      1. Well said. I agree. This is sure not the way we were taught the system functioned, though, at least in the public schools I attended!

        I remember being asked, in a job interview with a county attorney’s office, whether I was a “team player.” I said, “Well, of course, but I trust that does not mean violating the law.” I did not get a job offer.

        1. What a perfect anecdote, dino. I was going to reply to musings, focussing on corruption, and you beat me to it.

          Perhaps many readers grow weary of me always returning to what I believe the roots of the visible corruption are (obviously, sin is the real root, going back to the beginning of the problem eons ago). But it is important to see how the growth of institutions over time produces rent-seekers, and as the state becomes more powerful those entities can corrupt the bureaucrats, and the cycle eventually spins out of control. That’s why the struggle to keep the state small is so important, and when the state becomes stronger, the symbiotic relationship between the state and corporations who can use it for their benefit becomes uncontrollable.

          Academia retains its sheen of purity in the public mind, but I wonder how how long that can continue. Musings referenced the Glass Bead Game recently. I haven’t read it since the 70s but I remember well that the academy was constantly under attack by the hoi polloi as part of the story, because it is so expensive to maintain (in the book, the state finances it, and the professoriate treat their position in society as a matter inviolable as the laws of physics ). Well, that’s pretty true. She (musings) mused that Chomsky is playing the Glass Bead Game–but so are all the rest in this current article. The point being that they can only do it by keeping the funding rolling in. They are corrupt, but trick themselves into not seeing it that way.

          Now, I can’t remember details of the book all that well, so I’m going out on a limb here. If I remember correctly, in Hesse’s imagined world, the academy was able to maintain its splendid isolation from the corrupt outer world, against the pressures, and the professors really WERE worthy philosopher kings that the bums in the slums had no business questioning. Maybe the academics in our real world of today think that way about themselves. I suspect they do. But this is not Hesse’s fantasy. They are, many of them, more corrupt than the common man they presume they float loftily above.

          As a shameless self-promotion, the reader might consider clicking on my name, and read my first post of my new blog, which is about Cate Blanchett’s winning the Oscar. I develop the idea a little that in that movie the working class comes off looking a lot better than the Hamptons-types she represents. The difference here, of course, is that the professoriate can only hope to be INVITED to a weekend at the lairs of the Bernie Madoffs they wish to hobnob with–although they think they are superior to those philistines, and have no idea what’s wrong with a world where they can’t be as rich as them.

          They have to sell their souls if they are going to keep the Glass Bead Game going, which is the only reason they ever get those invites from those crude money men to start with. Imagine their terror at the prospect of telling the truth about the whole nest of corrupt symbiotic relationships? Never another invitation to a Georgetown soiree with George Will in attendance. Never an Upper West Side dinner party were Katie Couric might ask your opinion on something unrelated to your PhD.

          The good news, for us, is that James Tracy is the real deal, and cares nothing for any of that.

        2. Summing up then, the academia at MIT lives in the proverbial ivory towers and their scholarly research will never help bring those towers down!

        3. As for the sin problem in an age of deception, what do you expect? If the 90% masses are dependent on electronic devices for their source of “truth” how easy it must be to warp, fantasize and distort reality. The other side of deceit is whether people really deserve the true version or whether if they are spending countless hours in unproductive blogging in guise of the search for truth as internet guppies, they deserve to reap solid and life-changing truth? I doubt it.

          As for Blanchett no doubt she is one of the better actresses and people. Actors are just a higher version of prostitute who do little as real role models. The righteous thing would be to not pay them for skills that do little to meet the basic human needs, but suck people into illusion. In the Bible it says that everyone who “does and makes a lie” would be rejected in the last judgment of God. That must include fiction in its many forms no matter how well it is done.

        4. Rocky: fiction has its uses–just as u indicate, note some stuff cannot be told EXCEPT by means of fiction, “fiction” being the cover given to it.

          For humans are sinners, pretending to Godly creation of reality (the perfectly “free” human will, capable of “good,” for example), this typically in form of lies–“noble lies,” according to Plato and Leo Strauss.

          If Ron Paul came out too intensively for complete expo on Fed (legalized) COUNTERFEIT fraud–he’d be killed.

          Bible is fiction, like Homer’s Illiad and Oddysey, but WHAT great fiction it is, eh?–it tells us what we REALLY need to know–TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH is the ONLY way to Godly happiness (Gosp. JOHN 14:6).

  4. When I see all the wounded warrior commercial my heart breaks and I think of the hundreds of thousands of others that were killed and wounded based on the 911 lie and and the other lies afterward to justify these senseless wars. We have no control of our country at all.

    BTW – on the topic of Sandy Hook I came across this interesting piece of information. For what it’s worth:

    1. I agree with you about those warriors – and their families. It’s so that the most willing and strongest will not attack the problem of why their industrial towns and countryside homes are slipping into decay.

      As for the details of Sandy Hook, in a rational and truthful world, in which all the evidence was put out there and none was made up to explain away the lies, in which Mr. Fictionwriter of Sandy Hook and Ms. Videographer of same, were put on the stand (or the witnesses against them were), the kind of back-pedaling they always do would not be allowed. When someone found the loose thread, the defendant didn’t get to go to the store and buy a new spool the way they always do (the script is always in process, to mix a metaphor).

  5. If the lower floors of these buildings were pulverized by the momentum from the “pancaking” upper floors, what pulverized the upper floors? An invisible giant’s foot? The “reasoning” is absurd.

  6. Massachusetts, the heart of the defense industry. Not surprising to hear any of this. The perpetrators of 911 didn’t have to be the cream of the crop from the engineering community. They were however a little better than ok at human psychology, predicting human reaction. That is to say, they know people don’t necessarily believe what they see, but rather what they are told. All they needed to pull the wool over the publics eyes were a whole bunch of 125% mortgages and home equity lines of credit. Really, who wants to deal with 911 when we can load up the jet skis, and four wheelers(that will be paid off in 30 years, or maybe another re-fi) and go have some fun! The American people were paid off with their false prosperity, and now they are paying for it big time.

    1. And it will get to be an even greater bill when our taxes go up, our benefits go down, and somebody rolls out the evil Chechen meme in order to fight Russia with it, which is why I think it was constructed in the first place and said so. Somehow, I believe that Chechens will materialize to force Putin to back down, and when he says they are working for us, we can point to the Marathon. He won’t believe it, but the American public will, especially with the show trial whose date has been rushed to take place in the fall. Does this mean that we are once again, like foolish empires of the past, going to wind up challenging General Winter in Moscow? Stay tuned.

      1. It will be interesting what kind of info they will drag out of the Chechen. It is at the very least a good backup plan. As for Russia, they have seen a lot of action, and murder on their own soil in the last 120 years. In the end they may say to hell with it, and bring the fight to our front door. Given the low approval rating of our own President, and Congress, a dumbed down populace could see Putin, with the right message, as a liberator. Scary.

        1. I hope everyone feels fairly chilled here, seeing Blue Screen Anderson Cooper in Maidan Square.

          As things heat up, and there are shootings and bodies lying on the ground, I begin to imagine that all these drills provided an opportunity to test the gullibility of the American public and the discipline of the media. If anyone wants to produce, fictively, facts on the ground to justify war in what can only be an act of ultimate and suicidal folly for a nation like ours (and which will devastate Europe as well), it’s all ready to go. The tests have been done. The fools are going to go toe to toe with the Ruskies if they are told to do so, and they will think it is voluntary and that Putin is the biggest monster since that other guy. You know. I forget.

        2. Legalize 12 million Mexicans, and there is your pool of draftees. Just like the Irish coming off the ship during the civil war. Here is your bread, your citizenship papers, and don’t forget to drop your pre-marked ballot in the box. The millenials will never have to be woken from their smart phone coma.

          P.S. If you see the new citizens heading south… batten down the hatches!

  7. William Rodriguez was the eyewitness to hearing all kinds of strange movements on so called empty floors in the WTC, for many months leading up to the event. It’s in his documentary about this, and pulling people with severe burns out the the subbasements where there had been explosives.

    Everyone is giving a lot of press to Building 7 and ignoring the Pentagon. The best investigation of the Pentagon is on Pilots for 9/11 truth’s site where in their short video they demonstrate that using data provided by the government, the plane was a flyover. Maggie and Dave should ask some professors about this flyover. You’ll probably get an even more absurd response than what you already received about the WTC and Building 7.

  8. The issue of diesel fuel in the basement of WTC-7 is a total Red Herring.

    Those storage tanks were found intact with all fuel still inside. The diesel fuel was pumped out and accounted for. It disappoints me to see it raised here as an issue of any relevance to anyone at this time at all.

    That is why the final NIST report on WTC-7 attributed the collapse of WTC-7 to the (“magic” of) burning office furnishings alone.

    The diesel fuel had absolutely “nothing” to do with it!

    The actual damage to WTC-7 from the falling WTC towers was in fact, known to be highly superficial. The standard high rise steel girder grid construction of WTC-7 (unlike the WTC towers) does not use the outer walls for weight bearing structural purposes at all.

    They are called “curtain walls” for a reason.

    9-11-01 is a far more complex an issue to grasp than Sandy Hook will ever be.

    I have found that the best way to get an unstudied mind to consider the MSM supported “inside job” option for 9-11 is to start with the Pentagon.

    Show someone a picture of the original 20 foot hole in the Pentagon wall. Explain to them that this is where a 757 with a wingspan of 120 feet loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel and 6 ton titanium steel engines hit and entered to building.

    Remind them that the official story repeated by the MSM is that the fires were so hot inside the Pentagon that the 757 not only melted, but actually “vaporized” inside the building.

    Remind them that this fire went out when the roof collapsed upon it.

    Then, show them the images of the unmelted tar and gravel roof membrane after the fire went out, and the unburned paper and furniture in the exposed offices after the collapse.

    This will go a long way to soften them up to reconsider what they have been told by the MSM, and why what they know is in fact, impossible to be true.

    It was a MSM “Pentacon” !!!!

    1. In all seven buildings were damaged in NYC on 9/11. The alleged planes that hit the twin towers did not hit the other five.

      Anyone with a bit of training at a cia affiliated flight school in Florida can perform the magic flying skills on display on 9/11. Heck, I am sure if they gave me a chance I can commandeer a Boeing 757 just a few feet off the ground and straight into the financial shenanigan section of Pentagon, or as TC so aptly calls ‘Pentacon’, leaving no trace of plane, crew and passengers behind.

      1. Eyewitness intelligence analyst April Gallup says no plane in the Pentagon and no seat belts or passenger luggage, etc. She was also visited in the hospital by the FBI who wanted her to change her story and when she would not, they removed her disability insurance and fired her.

        also a friend was an eyewitness to Building 7 going down, watching from an apartment across the park. She said there were flashes of light all around one floor, then the entire building went down in its own footprint with no pancaking. So, no fire whatsoever.

        1. All of the actual facts contradict the official version of things regarding 9/11–NOTHING verifies–like the holohoax which is actually just a religious-type delusion–it’s amazing when one considers how little then holds-up for the establishment criminals–the incredible power of “noble lies.”

        2. This same witness was interviewed by Jessie Ventura in his Conspiracy Theory cable TV show on the Pentagon.

          Just like Jessie Ventura, all her attempts to get her story before a judge have failed.

    2. About the diesel fuel being a total red herring, I think you are pointing out what frequently happens in these stories – once the public starts asking questions, some “facts on the ground”, unspoken of before, get trotted out as the need arises. Researchers have pointed out that the heroic Flight 93 passenger story emerged in response to widespread rumors of a shoot-down of the plane. Of course both scenarios are fiction, but the shoot-down seems to have arisen as a popular rumor. The story had to be steered in another direction. And of course away from any government involvement in the fate of passengers.

      We can see that the Marathon suspect chase sequence also had a lot of last minute story revisions, such as taking out the 7-11 robbery near MIT, which was only constructed to put them close to the scene of shooting Sean Collier. It was a fictional necessity. Afterwards, questions about it were slopped over by a young man (Markowitz?) writing in the Boston Globe about his “interview” with a carjack victim. This was such compelling stuff that no one paid any attention any more to the logistics involved in the chase. Smoke and mirrors.

    3. There were also objects next to the Pentagon that would have been taken out by the wings of a plane. These frauds are so awful when you compare them with real events where people actually died as their bodies absorbed the energy from a plane running against a real building, and losing that energy as it was absorbed by the passengers, seats, etc., leaving it part way through the building. These fakes to me are not just fakes but sacrilege.

      1. Well, so musings, does it occur to u, we and Americans and all the world is subject to continuing BIG-LIE (in fact, an entire series of them) treatment on part of ZOG?

        And u see, once u accept one of these big-lies, it makes it more compelling, psychologically, to accept the next, and the next, etc. Some even begin to sympathizing w. ZOG–“Stockholm syndrome.”

        Again, ck Wikipedia and their article on BIG-LIE and how it works, the people psyched by the sheer enormity of it all–which they much and fairly fully understand–but then determining to fool themselves, going along.

        Big-lie is what’s happening, mass-corp. “news”-media fully co-operating, totally, as fm very first.

    4. Thanks for pointing that out about the diesel tanks. I’m not a scientist, but it seems that if the diesel fuel ignited, there would have been a big fire ball or something.

  9. I suggest next time do your research with independant parties ,not with MIT or any entities who are heavily supported by government funding & department of defense funding ( most likely the same people complicit in the crimes themselves) & they are almost completely supported by friends of the CFR ( counsel of foreign realtions),the same people who committed the crimes. . so not a word from any of MIT people can be reliable information.

    1. Excerpt from Truth Chase’s link:
      “As an educational institution, MIT has an obligation and a responsibility to the community. As one of the premier technological research institutes in the world, MIT has a major impact on the direction of scientific inquiry. The fact that it chooses to devote less than 20 percent of research effort to things other than more efficient means to kill is more than disgusting, it is criminal.”

      This was written in 1989. Twenty-five years later it’s my guess that the ‘less than 20 percent’ is even less today.

      1. I listened to this discussion, where Carlson is quite astute on a variety of issues–until Jones brings up 9/11 (above), at which time Carlson becomes visibly uncomfortable and seems to want to return to his hunting expedition.

        One is at a loss as to who exactly is being put on here. Jones is actively rubbing elbows with a flagrant smear monger. After all, Carlson presides over a news organization that has repeatedly assailed an institution I am affiliated with as “America’s worst college” because I raised questions on controversial events that remain unresolved. When I asked DC’s editors for an explanation or interview in Sept. 2013 they never responded. Will Jones see fit to interview John Podesta next?

        1. I listened to Tucker Carlson on the Jones Show. He is nothing more than a guy on the outside looking in that wants his old job back. He cops out on building 7 by saying he isn’t a structural engineer or something like that. Well Tucker, fortunately you don’t have to be a banker to know your paychecks are short, or a mechanic to know your car is running like crap, or a plumber to know the water stopped coming out of the shower head. Fishy is fishy, and you don’t need to be a German Shepherd to smell bulls^%t. Jones, star-struck and slobbering, let Carlson off the hook. Jones has a habit of blowing it when he has a chance to make history. Like he did on Piers Morgan, when he went hebephrenic shouting the “the answer to 1984 is 1776” over and over until his time was up. Jones could have really made a difference once, but I’m pretty sure someone stuck a gun in his face and handed him his script long ago, and when that happens, you do what you are told, or you end up in a mysterious car wreck(Hastings), or suicide(Aaron Schwartz).

      2. And Tucker’s conspiracies were immigration and Benghazi. Couldn’t he come up with some better ones than that?

  10. TruthChase – believe the point of the article was to demonstrate their unwillingness to question the impossibilities of the commission’s report is proof that they are participants in the big cover up.

    There is a lawsuit in progress on this!

    “The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued byMorgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York. In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.”
    – See more at:

  11. The best scientists we have at MIT conclude the reason the towers fell is exactly the same explanation as some guy in a Harley Davidson shirt..Really?

    Mark Walsh’s Fox interview on 9/11

    @:55 Mark Walsh appears and explains how the towers fell exactly as the MIT engineers and Noam Chomsky gang claimed they did. The man must be brilliant!

    The reporter asks this “MIB” character he pretends he doesn’t know “what’s your role here”
    @3:33 the CIA Agent says he can’t say “What role he’s playing right now”.

    These two video expose the MIB (men in black agents) worth the watch. I think a Larry posted one these videos already on MHB but it still worth watching again.

    I find it very obvious the planted explanation for the towers was pre-planned.
    Building 7 ?? What building?? That’s the official explanation for Building 7.

    1. Mark Walsh is a funny dude. He knew ‘structural failure’ immediately. This comes directly out of the Operation Northwoods false flag operator’s manual.

  12. I would not recommend interviewing such scholars other than off the record. Ie their identities must be held secret and they must have complete certainty on that score.

    1. Alternately, interview them, get them on the record saying that the official theory (19 guys, boxcutters, yada yada) is correct. Then stand back and let history take over. This will be exposed — 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, does not matter — and history will not look kindly on these conspiratorial liars.

      1. Yes, but the pt. to the article by Lewit, I’m sure, is the general incompetence and lack of conclusiveness for Chomsky’s “challenge.” In other words, Chomsky says ck the engineers of MIT, and what do we get?–not much in way of straight answers, just the usual politically-correct babble and double-talk, along w. cowardly pleading of ignorance, etc.–the great virtue of modern edjumacation fm ZOG.

      2. The point is, what would such scholars win by standing out openly?
        They would certainly risk being subject to reprisals in the form of being put on a lower prority for funding next time there is a choice between their applications and those of other competing projects.
        Carroll Quigleys books were written because he was appalled by the british/angloamerican model of complete control of everything of importance in the interest of the empire.
        The truth very much undermines the interests of empire and makes it look like something for every sain person to battle wholehartedly.
        Not that I think such scholars would think thus consciously but they’ve got their cautious manners instinctually. Its an automatic reflex.

        Moreover I dont think people dealing with technology for normal buildings are a good choice. A better choice would be really smart people having a general analytic background. With the kind of skills needed to tackle previously unknown situations. Such people are likely to be busy practising and developing their skills.
        And not particularly political.
        The thing to aim for is to get to know them and try to make them willing to deal with this seeming mystery. Directing them to the different existing theories in case they are unfamiliar with it. There is no point in making them public figures unless they want that.
        I dont think the setting described in the article provides the kind of trust in which people are willing to become really motivated. It was a kind of psychological field test with the experts/students being objects for study or, if you will guinea pigs.

        1. “Carroll Quigleys books were written because he was appalled by the british/angloamerican model of complete control of everything of importance in the interest of the empire.”

          * * * * * * * * *

          Peter: I don’t know where u get this, in ur quote fm above. Quigley, mentor/teacher of Bill Clinton, made it clear he applauded everything the Council on Foreign Relations did and stood for, he only objecting they kept things secret–that’s why he wrote his book, the galley-plates to which were later destroyed by the CFR.

          U call them “imperialists,” but note they’re actually criminals–COUNTERFEITERS, literally, they just taking advantage of the stupid masses who can’t figure-out money must be commodity, the best being precious metal, like gold/silver–like Ron Paul explains in his work, “End the Fed.”

          It’s nature’s way of eliminating the weaklings–now the dumb folk must be killed-off, this then causing the top masterminds to begin to suspecting one another as the slave-class dies out–such is the CYCLIC “progress” of history and Greek tragedy.

        2. Only reason I answer you apollonian is there might be others following the discussion.

          When you take your time to actually read Quigley and dont rely on various summaries you might understand what I’m talking about. Bill Clinton hopefully learned something listening to him but he was rather young then. The fact that mr Griffin interprets Bill Clinton to plead allegiance to the forces Q describes isnt necessarily the only interpretation. It could be a way to deal with them just as well. Clinton like other democrats who have tried to change some of the aspects of american society somewhat more towards the european models, have been so overrun with hatred( from the ruling oligarchy?) that they have succumbed it seems to me rather than enthusiastically embraced the policies they came to accept.

          Quigley like everyone who isnt completely brainwashed like the british would of course never have exposed those devils if he approved of them. It is a contradiction in terms to say you would approve of their aims if they only were open about it. The whole point with their behaviour was to deceive and pit competitors against each other. He said that just to make it easier to get past censorship. He also deliberately gave the swedish Nobel brothers the wrong nationality to make it more acceptable. Reason being it was considered more ok to chase German oilentrepreneurs out of Russia and take their place than to do it to swedes. The angloamerican establishment had so effectively lied about and demonized the germans. In order to appeal to the despicable imperialists he also made very condensending statements about Spain and about arabs. He said there is a line on the map from Pakistan to Peru and below that line lie the backward nations having been under arab influence. Everyone knows this he said but they dont talk about it. That kind of remarks strike me as unnecessarily negative even if he held such views. He knew he had an important message and warning about the aim to dominate the world with central banks under private angloamerican control(by being able to select those in charge everywhere). And that they secretely and deceptively controlled everything of importance for popular indoctrination. Education media politics etc. Worldwide. And that terrible condition can be studied on msm in most countries today. It was worth inserting passages for the sole purpose of slipping it through the scrutiny of the censors. His complete lack of references is an additional sign of this.

        3. Peter: as usual, ur scholarship leaves something to be desired. U say, “When you take your time to actually read Quigley and dont rely on various summaries you might understand what I’m talking about.” But what are u talking about? I read Quigley–so what are u referring to? U don’t say. U complain Quigley gave no references, but neither do u. Ho ho ho

        4. I want to add that I am assuming that apollonian at least occasionally ‘is’ some kind of computer algoritm and consequently cannot be hurt by anything I say. If someone would turn up and claim to be the commentator with that alias I would still doubt very much that all the comments attributed to that alias have been worked out manually. The content really seems to be something programmed to make eg other seriousminded critics of the fed seem annoying. In my view apollonians main motive must necessarily be to sabotage the debate. I figure Eliza from the 1970s is a distant ancestor of apollonians algorithm, but the Eliza algorithm had no destructive intent and was liked by some of the users. Assuming my guess about apollonian is correct he/she is like Elizas evil grandchild.

        5. ha, ha ha! The annoying algorithm! I could agree with that. They make it say u and ur and ZOG(have you heard anything more annoying?) and then occasionally a person will write something meaningful. It’s funny how it tries to beat us with the christian stuff in a really annoying way and then it claims the bible is just allegory(which I tend to agree with not that I know much about it). It badgers us with the fed and the big lie and zionism in an annoying way and then will push obvious disinfo like judy wood, snowden, assange etc. in a more serious fashion. It claims ZOG is the tip of the pyramid and then pushes Alex Jones all the time?? WTF? It can’t even remember which sex it purports to be. sometimes the abbreviations it types are more work than typing the word itself, why do that unless you are trying to be annoying?

        6. Go back and look. I posted a radio interview I found in one of my comments on here from 2010. It was some 3rd rate internet show where some guy interviews ap-boloney-ian. I wasn’t hard to find. He spouts the same bible is fiction tripe on there as well, while at the same time calling for a Christian revival. What a maroon.

        7. rich, I already tried to sit through that interview but could only take a couple of minutes of it. I guess I am just a less tolerant person than others. Ha ha. I love trying to sniff out trolls but Abaloney is just too irritating, I can’t even stand reading it’s stuff when it is being nice or saying something I agree with.

        8. An hour I will never get back for sure. I took one for the team. I had to clean the cat box anyway.

        9. Peter: here’s direct quote fm Quigley–

          “I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” — Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope


        10. I like Peter’s theory, and heartily agree with fish on this.

          Rich, although I could not endure more than 10 excruciating minutes of that fellow being interviewed claiming that name, one thing that stood out was that he sounded nothing like the things written under that name, which sound sort of like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog–the accent of a recently arrived Ukrainian immigrant. And just as intentionally rude and foolish.

        11. Patrick, I see the disparities you mention also. Nonetheless, both characters spout some of same homemade philosophy as can be heard later in the interview. He is just an aspiring guru, living in his mothers basement, playing video games, perusing stacks of cliff notes, and occasionally hollering “mom, more meatloaf!” through the ceiling. His victories are merely in being noticed, and taking time away from this forum. I will acknowledge his existence no more.

        12. Hey just ignore the apollonian d-bag. Eventually he’ll just go away – hopefully.

        13. [sorry, misplaced the first entry, ho ho ho]

          Righto, billy the boy, child genius, ho ho ho ho ho

      3. I seem to recall the box cutters story came from Barbara Olson’s call to her husband, Ted the Solicitor General from the plane. Except for the small detail that the FBI concluded that no such call was ever connected.

        So we have the Solicitor General, after his wife died, making up this whole story to support the agenda.

        How screwed up is this country ? 911, Sandy Hook? what next will they fool the masses with ?

        1. Bill, u ask what next?–well, they’re (“they” meaning ZOG) trying to see how far re-opening cold war w. Russia will take them, evidently.

          How screwed-up is USA?–well, it’s CYCLIC “Decline of the West,” by Spengler, the people consumed in HUBRIS of Pharisaist indulgence in “good-evil,” this all fm time of Immanuel Kant in late 18th cent., present Mammonist “prosperity” (ho ho ho) keeping masses wallowing in “bread & circuses” diversion, as we see.

          How screwed up?–observe the dis-connect w. the original Christian religion, worship of TRUTH above all/any other precepts (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), which would NEVER have begun to even conceivably tolerate any connection w. such as terror-state of Israel, descendents of the murderers of Christ.

          So, u have this horrific HUBRIS of the now fading middle-class, imperialist degeneration, indulging the typical “good-evil” conceit, it all worked to benefit ZOG–clever eh?–but typical, if u just consider–not only that, but it is actually predicted in allegorical lyricism of Book of Revelations–esp. for the leading “Christians” (“Judeo-Christian” hereticalists, in truth) playing flunkies & lackies to Israeli terror-state–inconceivable otherwise, which wouldn’t or couldn’t be made-up by anyone, ho ho ho.

  13. —————————————-


    I don’t have the capacity to toe a lateral party line on any issue.
    So my take is to search until things make sense.

    Here is Chomsky come down to earth with a vital analysis of “how to ruin an economy,” i.e. ours. It is short and you must listen carefully knowing his speaking voice is frail but his mind is still sharp. With this presentation, you concede he is on our side. I particularly like the Q and A session. Gave me something to consider….(video offered at ‘Truthdig.’)

    1. Marilyn: it would be best of all if u could summarize things for us so we could see & know if it was worthwhile. I guarantee Chomsky, defender of ZOG (with the usual reservations), will NOT say anything about the fraudulent banking system, just legalized COUNTERFEITING, which gives ZOG all it’s practical power–just more of ur beloved socialism and collectivist prop., as usual.

      1. ———————————-

        Chomsky went after all the evils of the plutocrats–banking, corporatism, corrupt media, judiciary, and politicans, et al.
        Mentioned the IMF and neoliberalism’s agenda to wreck
        the world economy and usher in globalization. If you aren’t familiar with these current trends, he might educate you. The whole
        enchilada of malfeasance and greed. Loved it!

        1. Yes, but the crux to things economic and cultural is the “central-banking” and fiat-money which Chomsky never hrd of. Otherwise, I’m sure it’s the usual leftist cant and diversion. “Globalists” own the “left-right paradigm,” Chomsky being mere part, playing his role, keeping people’s eye off the real banking fraud that’s working.

        2. Apollonian- I have NEVER heard Chomsky address the central banking, creating money out of thin air problem. In all those books on deep politics and war, I never saw him mention the Federal Reserve. And he never will. Also in all those books he wrote on Israel and Palestine, he NEVER mentioned the Israel Lobby, and if I’m not mistaken he was not at all supportive of the work by Walt and Mearsheimer.

        3. Big deal! This is not a high school pep rally, Marilyn. Chomsky has done nothing to stop a war, expand labour rights, uncover criminal syndicates, and so on. He comes out, usually after the fact, after the damage has been done, and moans and groans for the dead. It’s this or one of his defeatist arguments, designed to give those with the most might a pass for unchained violence. His brazen support for the 9/11 cover story exemplifies. He said the imaginary hijackers got mad at America, with good reason. This was supposed to curtail mass slaughter, and new age war? All his opponents had to do was dismiss him before they started launching death.

          He’s worse than misguided. I believe there is substantial evidence he directed the left press and academic community toward an invasion of Libya. I’m not aware whether he did the same work on Syria; I stopped paying attention to him on account of Libya. But he has blood on his hands. A lot of it.

          Those who haven’t ought to read the small bit on Chomsky at It, even in brevity and Larouche style duplicity, should illustrate how the system of control works, and that Chomsky is tightly in its grips.

          What has Chomsky done to turn the left against a horrifying war in the Ukraine and Crimea? Nothing. That’s all we need to say. With despair, I repeat this. It’s with immense despair that I find people, such as Marilyn, falling for the same old Chomsky tricks. The sight of “sheeple” doesn’t cause hopelessness. Seeing men and women in herds does.

    2. If, at the very least, he does not use as talking points the various hoax terror events, but sticks to the economic realities, then indeed he retains his integrity.

      I know that recently, Edward Snowden sent a letter to a European body from Russia. He stated that NSA proved its lack of value because it never picked up on the Boston Marathon bombing attacks. Using an example like that makes him seem at best naive and at worst complicit in government shenanigans. The discipline of a thoughtful person might be never to use those tools as your talking points, even if you use them as a rhetorical device without underlying belief. It keeps you from adding energy to all the subsequent actions by government to use these events to advance oppression.

      I have no idea if Chomsky used such a device in the past. Perhaps he is too smart for that. So his treating this stuff as mere noise, like television commercials and soap operas, would provide one model of how to go forward in a society which includes these methods, along with their promotion of oligarchies while “Rome burns” and the poor are squeezed ever harder. The problem for me is that inspiring the population by promoting healthy uses of our resources (at some expense of oligarchs) is so much harder than simply terrifying them into wars of aggression. Then they find their suffering is turned to national “sacrifice” even while their status falls ever lower.

      1. Disagree, musings: under the circumstances, Snowden using the Bost. bombing as talking/ref. pt. is perfectly legitimate, effective, and even strictly accurate so far as he goes–what was use or worth of NSA?–was his pt., right? Thus NSA is just a net minus far as any value for people of USA.

      2. ————————————-

        Not that I can agree with the tactic, but Chomsky (and Alex Jones, though hardly in the same category) think the 9/11, Sandy Hook questions will never get past the wall of official secrecy so why waste time when the bigger threat of global tyranny is staring us in the face? This position gives me headaches, but who is to say it isn’t the smart way to go?

        We will never convince naysayers that smoking guns color their comfortable denial. The issues tear at the fabric of our
        national discourse. And denying one paves the way for
        suspecting all. Chomsky does offer a few solutions: organize, organize, organize. Hard to do when so many factions clamber for recognition. But to do nothing is suicide.

        1. I’d say long as present banking fraud holds up, US Dollar continuing to be accepted as payment for goods & svcs, ZOG will continue to rule–any problem, ZOG will just pay-out more money. So it will go till Dollar finally collapses in hyper-inflation–only then will ZOG be vulnerable.

          Meantime, strongest single supporter of ZOG are Judeo-Christians (JCs–see for expo) who rabidly support terror-state of Israel–this is a serious weak-pt. for ZOG, which naturally calls for the real Christianity, explicitly anti-ZOG, to revive USA and West.

        2. Apollonian, note that the apex globalists are actively moving forward with their plan to replace with the dollar with an IMF SDR global basket of currencies to be replaced with a global digital currency linked to energy credits under a global governance paradigm. This means ZOG or global elite, however we describe “them”, will centralize their power even more when the dollar is replaced as the reserve currency AND the prison planet police state will have metastasized and have been codified unless the public resists in a very big way and soon.

          The general term that best describes their system of control is global Technocracy, a term they themselves have long used and increasingly the MSM is using referring to describe, for example, unelected leaders in Greece and Italy as “technocrats” (both also Trilateralists and one a former Goldman Sach executive). Technocracy is the notion of a government run by an elite dictatorship (banksters and their minions) appointing policy makers who will decide all aspects of functioning for the masses, work, food production, education, health care, socialization, information access, etc, essentially the “scientific society” envisioned in the early 20th century yet not quite within reach because the requisite technology had not been developed. At one point in that early era there were more than half a million card carrying technocrats attending meetings at the Hollywood Bowl in their special gray uniforms driving gray vehicles. Uber groupthink, as homo sapiens are sadly prone to.

          The vision of a global technocracy began to get some serious traction when the Trilateralists formerly took over US politics and industry with the Carter administration, all but one cabinet member was a Trilateralist and eventually he was replaced for a full deck. Rockefeller and Brzezinski created the 300 member Trilateral group and placed them in key positions in politics and industry in the US, particularly, and also Europe and Japan. Brzezinski served as Carter’s National Security Adviser and has been highly influential as a behind the scenes adviser to subsequent administrations and remains a prominent global technocracy / fascism strategist today. Brzezinski enthusiastically worked toward creating China as a model technocracy as this fact was fully admitted in the 70s and given some coverage in the mainstream media. Few people recognized the significance and couldn’t fathom that the US manufacturing sector would soon be dismantled to this end. China is a global elite creation and remains under their thumb as do most nation states at this point, and even to some extent this is true for Russia. When Russia’s economy was deliberately imploded in the mid 90s, Larry Summers, Trilateralist, former Goldman Sach executive and former US Secretary of Treasury was sent by TPTB to Russia to advise on the privatization of the Russian peoples’ state owned assets thus creating eight powerful billionaire oligarchs with internationalist sympathies (seven of eight being ethnic Jews, only relevant in terms of reflecting an usual pattern of centralization of capital) and thus opening a deeper wedge of control over Russia politically and economically.

          For additional background check out the work of scholars Patrick Wood and the late Antony Sutton. Wood’s website is a very good source of information at Again, Technocracy encompasses many parts of the overall system of control being erected including health care, smart meters, spying, drones, capital controls, banking, digital currency, tracking, Agenda 21, education, corporatism/fascism, information control and overt censorship, and is behind attacks on civil liberties and the Constitution, etc – a dystopian neofeudalism matching and exceeding the visions of Orwell and Huxley.

        3. Yes, singularity, I follow u completely–excellent sources u give as well as expo, too. Indeed, I’m familiar w. Pat Wood, Sutton, et al.

          BUT where I somewhat take issue w. u is regarding the currency. Make no mistake: when US Dollar finally collapses, ZOG will be in serious, deep, and tremendous trouble–REGARDLESS what they attempt to replace dollar with. Only gold/silver and commodity money is going to do for real money. Lots and lots of “eaters” (as “Lophatt” calls them) are going to perish, I’m afraid.

          And as the masses die-off, the top masterminds will tend evermore to distrust one another upon principle of “no honor among thieves”–this then is when the remnant of survivors will have best chance for successful revolt, I suspect.

          Thus people must, I submit, coalesce upon principle of original Christianity–much in way of St. Constantine the Great who revived the then moribund Roman empire of the time–at least briefly.

  14. No one is going to throw away an engineering career and professorship by attempting to validate a conspiracy theory, regardless of the evidence. An anonymous survey of foreign engineers who do not depend on US government contracts would be very interesting.

    1. While I agree with you, I still have to wonder why. It would argue that we live in a far more monolithic society than some believe, in which you are forced to accept authority these days. Is it possible that this was not always true in the US?

    2. I’m not sure an engineering degree is necessary here. The building’s owner is on film stating that the decision was made to “PULL” Building Seven due to numerous fires.

      Is it possible for a demolition team to show up with permits, blueprints, detonators, batteries, timers, thermite, miles of wire, and connectors and rig the 47 story trapezoidal building, (clad in solid masonry,) evacuate the area, and bring it down by 5:21 pm the same day?

      That’s a question for demolition team’s, who would probably give a straight answer.

      1. Unless it’s Controlled Demolitions, Inc., Sandy, as I think it is. This firm was involved in the Murrah Building, as well as (I believe) in 9/11, and I don’t mean just in clean-up. It is the one that is putting the explosives in and detonating them.

  15. Why not ask them about the newscaster who announced the collapse before it happened, and the interview of the owner who said they pulled it? It seems that should factor into the scientists’ analysis.

    1. A little more than two hours after you posted this comment, Skeptic, Tammie posted an interview Alex Jones conducted with Tucker Carlson, where Tucker was shown an excellent collection of building 7 footage, including all the stuff you mention. He acted completely unconvinced, and totally noncommittal. What should nave been an AHA! moment was anything but.

      I do not think it is that easy to get sheep to recognize that they are corrupt; their marriage to the system is generally close to inviolate.

      1. He also said that he had not watched the footage of WTC7, after Jones asked him. This is complete B.S. Everyone in MSM has seen all the evidence. Even though I don’t trust ‘journalists,’ I do believe they have an investigative instinct that led them to their careers. They know what happened but no one has the balls to say anything about it because their jobs are more important than the truth.

        He also too quickly had the response that he doesn’t know how buildings fall, he’s not an expert. Most people that I show WTC7 have a period of pause and start asking questions, not just immediately take the defensive as “I’m too stupid to draw a conclusion.”

        1. Exactly. He’s long since decided how he will deal with such a challenge. It’s in the can; he just plays the tape.

          Anyone who genuinely has never been exposed to the Building 7 stuff, and is shown what Alex showed Tucker, would instantly conclude that we have been lied to all along. There’s no other option.

          As you say, he’s certainly lying about never having heard about Building 7, and he proves it when he feigns to be unmoved by the material Alex presented him with.

        2. I think many people who see WTC7 just shut it out of the brains. Its just too much to comprehend. Instant denial. It challenges everything we believe. Its like they know something is wrong, but they don’t want to face the scary reality and would rather stay in their perfect world.

          An example I like to use is a good friend of mine from high school told me he saw a huge UFO over our redneck town we grew up in together. He’s a life-long friend and I would never question his sincerity. But at the same time, my brain doesn’t want to go there. I just put it on the back shelf and move on.

        3. Strange how the fall of WTC-7 can cause (otherwise) intelligent and basically rational people to profess ignorance to knowing even the most basic “laws” of Newtonian science.

          Even stranger, is when (otherwise) intelligent and basically rational people can see images of the original 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon wall that was claimed to have been impacted by a 757 jet with a 120 ft. wing span at 400+ mph., and still come up with reasons that allow them to continue to accept the “official” story.

          I blame the MSM.

          The MSM has never aired images of the fall of WTC-7 since the live coverage of the event, and the only images of the Pentagon that were ever broadcast show images well after the collapse of the Pentagon roof.

          The management and editors of the MSM are active and complicit in the deception of the masses.

  16. There really is more to be said on Chomsky’s affiliations and the fuel for the launch of his career coming directly from the CIA’s Frankfurt School fronted, culture production machine—the CCF—and the early Soviet social cultivation machine—the Comintern (unsurprisingly, the two share members in certain ways). Early in his career, Chomsky adopted a doctrine espoused by Bertrand Russel (he publically admits to this, if memory serves, in the film, “Rebel Without a Pause”). This is a fair starting point of any investigation of him, though you could go back further.

    Scroll down to the bit about Chomsky (actually, the whole thing is worth a read) in the following: . Be warned this comes out of the Red Lion’s den, known otherwise as the Larouche Pac[k]. They are out for blood . . . always distinguishable by their selectivity.

  17. I know building 7 is where everyone likes to start asking questions since it wasn’t hit by any large flying objects (other than an I-beam or two), but honestly I think it’s good for people who haven’t questioned the evidence to simply watch the twin towers come down on compiled footage. Most people have a picture in their mind of what it looked like, but when was the last time they actually looked at it? I don’t pretend that Building 7 was an unassisted collapse, but at least it actually looks like SOME kind of genuine collapse.

    I don’t pretend to know exactly what happened to the towers… thermate, nanothermite, directed energy bomb/weapon, HAARP (see Hurricane Erin 2001), a combination, or some other technology about which we lowly peasants can hardly find twenty year old articles and patents despite our funding the research with our tax dollars, but I for one am absolutely certain that the destruction was not the result of an aluminum airplane, kerosene, and, gravity. No. Way. They are blown to bits, peeling away like two bananas just alike, with almost every bit disintegrating and turning to dust on its way down! Watch it in slow motion and the buildings (and presumably the occupants) literally vaporize… “Not one desk, not one phone…” in the rubble. The one filing cabinet found from the largest office space in the world is about the size of a laptop. Cars on the street over a half mile away flipped or burst into flames while paper and trees were unharmed. Firefighters who survived in both buildings in the same place – second floor stairwell – reported the buildings turning to thick dust above them and then the blue sky opening up… (nothing fell on them). I know she’s been written off as a kook by even the truther movement, but my feeling is that Judy Wood, if eccentric, is closest to the truth of all the physical researchers. If you can afford it, get her book or at least watch her presentation,d.b2I
    Don’t mind the intro, it gets better.

    I half-heartedly, sleepwalkedly believed the official story for a decade or so, perhaps just drifting with the collective shock that turned everyone’s eyes away, but it was watching the towers… fall? disappear? again that really woke me up.

    I also like to reenforce that a “conspiracy theory” by nature involves the question “who.” These are physical observations, not conspiracy theories. Just sayin. However, I do find it best when dealing with capable people who haven’t confronted the evidence yet to only point out the anomalies, rather than theorizing about what DID happen. For example, ask genuinely how the gravity driven collapse could have caused the damage to the cars (but not the trees) as evidenced in photos. How anything approaching freefall speed could have occurred when survivors’ testimony indicated that the floors below the impact areas were under “normal conditions with the lights on.” Just doesn’t make any sense, and it’s been much more productive, for me at least, to spread the.. “this doesn’t make any sense” vibe rather than trying to lead people.

    And as to keeping secrets, just do a little looking into how many people have conveniently been killed or committed suicide in the wake of 9/11… just in this country.

    I also tend to think that the majority of the actors in the event WERE foreign agents, but the problem is that such abilities are really only available to our allies…

    1. There were NO planes crashing into any Towers on 9/11. The event was a military psyop facilitated by the ZOG owned media.

      If you saw planes, they were CGI/SFX inserted into the TV broadcast.

      Here are a couple of videos that explain how it’s an IMPOSSIBILITY for thin-skinned aluminum airplanes (and their fragile wings) to slice through steel beams and several floors of reinforced concrete (laterally) – as if flying through a cloud.

      1. hey, I like your avatar. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions about plane/no plane. CGI and media fakery only amount to cgi/fakery/complicity but in no way does that suggest no planes. It is similar to sandy hook – no evidence of bodies does not prove that there were no deaths. only evidence can prove something, a lack of it leaves open infinite possibilities.

        1. Fake CGI planes on 9/11 = no planes on 9/11, anyway you look at it. And a lack of no planes on 9/11 does indeed constitute evidence that the Mossad/CIA infiltrated, Jew-owned media was complicit and an active participant in the 9/11 event – not to mention the public was grossly mislead which caused Americans to support the fake War on Terror, torture, indefinite detention, loss of liberties, etc..

          Unending wars, the impending US financial collapse, loss of freedoms, the ‘War on Terror,’ the Patriot Act, the re-establishment of opium production in Afghanistan and the global heroin flow, the permanent US bases in the middle east, and the wars of aggression abroad at the behest of Israel, the TSA, etc. – all followed the 9/11 psyop.

          Cui bono?

          I respectfully suggest you reserve judgement until you’ve watched the videos and researched the subject in depth.

        2. really? how do you know there wasn’t some other type of remote controlled plane? what evidence do you have? none, if the videographic evidence has been manipulated then you have no evidence at all that you can trust.
          well I am 4and a half minutes into the first video and already there is a deliberate distortion of reality and physics. No sorry, a building was not travelling at 500 miles an hour into a stationary plane it was the other way around. If the entire mass of the plane was travelling at 500 mph towards the building you had better believe it would penetrate the building. The claim that aluminum cannot penetrate steel is absurd, it is akin to saying that led cannot penetrate steel. I encourage you to get a nice heavy piece of 1/2″ plate and hold it in front of your chest while your buddy shoots at it with a 308. I then would be happy to talk to you about Newton’s third law of motion.
          I don’t know if there were planes that really hit or not but I know for sure that you don’t either.
          Interesting that you mentioned Jews and zog in your rant, how relevant.

        3. Truly remarkable. Thank you for posting these videos.

          I have long knew that real planes, as depicted in the news footage, was an impossibility. This really breaks it down in amazing detail.

        4. You’re welcome Patrick – and you’re right about aircraft. They aren’t built for impact with any solid object, not even a goose. And certainly their hollow aluminum wings cannot shear through steel beams and concrete floors!

        5. “Fake CGI planes on 9/11 = no planes on 9/11, anyway you look at it.”

          no, it really doesn’t. That is one possibility but there are others. Perhaps they were flying different aircraft and wanted to hide that. Perhaps they wanted to make no planers look like idiots to peole who were there and saw a plane hit, what better way than to introduce cgi anomalies and intentionally start a meme that there were no planes. was it missiles? bombs? santa claus? who knows. All I know is that making leaps of logic helps no one.

        6. fishandroaches- those videos are pretty good, and worth taking a look at. I know how people who advocate the no plane thing are ridiculed. I never looked into it, but later decided to see what all the fuss was about. I am convinced it is a possibility. Why not? Once you see the live chopper videos compared to one another, it’s pretty hard to explain away the many anomalies. Sometimes it’s exhilarating when you change your mind about something you were sure of. ; )

        7. Fishandroaches skeptical reaction regarding planes is at the point. One has to do the calculations to get an idea of what to expect. I made an effort to estimate the energetics involved. I made the assumption that the thickness of the steel profiles was 1/2 inch at the proper height. Pictures of the building during its construction enabled me to make that estimate of the thickness. I assumed the breaking tension would be 1% of youngs modulus. The result was that the airplane could indeed cause serious damage and break many beams. In accordance with Newtonian physics there would be an even more serious damage done to the plane. It could never look like on those videos but I think we all agree about that anyway.
          There is something odd about the hole attributed to the plane. It goes all the way out to the full wingspan, to the outermost tips of the wings.
          Since the wings are bent backwards, this means the inner parts of the wings and the engines would already had broken through the building when the wingtips could begin to touch the wall. Consequently the full integrity of the wings was retained despite the inner parts having been subject to the enormous counterforce from the broken steel beams(and in addition a 1inch thick 3x1m steel plate for every triplet of beams on every storey.)
          It would seem to me inevitable that instead of retaining its integrity the wings would have been seriously deformed, bent backwards or been shredded and thus preventing the wingtips to be able to ever reach out to the full wingspan.
          I believe the plotters of 9/11 overdid it in using explosives to create this kind of hole. They were so anxious to give it the correct size with respect to the wingspan(for identification of the type of plane) that they made it physically impossible to have been caused by that particular type of plane. Had they just made a smaller hole it would be less clearcut.
          But it would still be extremely unlikely that no parts of the plane had remained on the outside. The floors are made of 10cm concrete and steel. In order to vanish inside the building the plane would have to break and/ or push aside /bend aside/ crush – whatever, several such floors a long way into the building.
          Like fishandroaches correctly points out the argument that aluminium cannot cut through steel is wrong, but the conclusion that an airliner of the suggested type could have been involved in accordance with the official narrative is nevertheless physically impossible.

        8. FYI

          The shape of the holes in the WTC towers is not a “real” problem.
          There were large pieces of landing gear etc. on the streets after impact.

          The shape of the 20 foot hole in the Pentagon is a “real” problem.

          It fails to account for any part of the 120 foot wing span that must have hit the wall with 10,000 gallons of fuel and 6 ton titanium steel engines.

          The shape of the 20 foot hole in Shanks Ville is another “real” problem.

          The Pennsylvania hole is in “fact” round. The shape of the wings is an illusion. The shape of the wings is in “reality”, was always there and comes from an old, previously existing gravel excavation line.

          If it were not for the Pentagon’s propaganda machine in the MSM, the truth would be obvious to all of us.

        9. Terry, can you document this statement?

          “There were large pieces of landing gear etc. on the streets after impact.”

          I have not read that.

        10. Sure Sunny,

          Here are two of several Google images for you. Everything I said/say is provably accurate…..unless I am speculating.


        11. Those landing gear pics don’t change much for me. Landing like a literal needle in a haystack, why is there a piece of rope laying over the landing gear, if it even is landing gear at all, the lone tire and wheel, why wasn’t it burning, how did it land under the scaffolding, who found it? I would be more convinced by say… a drink cart, now those things are unmistakable, and built to last.

        12. Feel free to have an opinion Rich. I am not saying that you will find a drink cart, but if you Google image 9-11 plane parts on NYC streets, there is quite a collection.

          Just saying.

        13. Sorry, didn’t mean to come off as rude. Thanks for posting the link. Until now I had only seen the one wheel. However, I am skeptical of the alleged landing gears trajectory being so perfect as to land in such a tight spot. I am not familiar with the area. I suppose it could have hit the taller of the two buildings and slid down into the gap. If so, I wonder if there was a visible point of impact on the building where it hit.

        14. I’m not convinced by this, either. Although I don’t know what landing gear looks like, I know it wouldn’t fly four blocks away. It would fall straight down when the plane hit the building.

          Moreover, 12 years later they find this?

          This is like those fake videos of the “Sandy Hook School.” Fooey, I say.

        15. Yeah, and like someone else said, the landing gear is tucked inside the plane. I’m pretty convinced most of the planes should have crumpled and fallen down the same side they impacted, after they exploded to bits that is. Disappearing planes, and disappearing buildings… maybe it was David Copperfield.

        16. Rich & Dinophile,

          Those planes slammed into the WTC towers at 400+ mph.

          Think about that.

          If you are seeing these pictures for the first time, would it help you, if I tell you that this info and these images have been part of the story since day one?

          Perhaps not.

        17. NIST says UA Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 590 mph, however, the cruising speed (attained at 30,000 – 50,000 feet altitude) of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph.

          It is mechanically impossible for a pilot to force a 767 to cruising speed at sea level, and the Towers’ 1,000 feet height is considered sea level.

          To do so would either 1) force the jet to automatically climb, or 2) cause the jet to go beyond its design, become unstable and break apart from the vibrations.

          The cruising speeds of a Boeing 767 class aircraft can only be attained because of the thinner air at high altitudes. At sea level with denser atmospheres, the 767 can only reach 160 – 230 mph.

          Ask an airline pilot – or better yet, call Boeing and ask them to confirm these numbers.

        18. Terry, how can you say these photos and images have been part of the story since Day 1? The discovery was made in April 2013!

          The NYPD pictures look simply like a rusted motor with a rope thrown over. I don’t even see a wheel. And they’re totally different from some pictures I found on another site, where it’s determined that it’s not landing gear, after all, but a speed regulator mounted behind the wing. Nothing is discernible in those pictures showing a tight gap between two buildings. It could be anywhere and anything.

          The story below deals with conjecture that the debris was intentionally planted, because of opposition to the proposed mosque:

        19. My apologies to all, for including an image of a plane part of such recent discovery, as an example of the many plane parts found scattered around the WTC area on 9-11-01.

          This should not change anyone’s opinion about the reality of real planes hitting the Twin Towers. They did.

          Lots of (other) plane pieces were well documented “from day one”, including the other image I used as an example.of landing gear with an attached aircraft tire on the New York street.

          Other landing gear parts are “known” to have crashed through the roof of one of the neighbouring buildings to this new find as well.

          As for the rope, later dated papers explained that it was found in the same area as the plane part (now confirmed to be a part of the wing, and not part of the landing gear) and had “actually been lassoed by an officer “in order to move it in such a way as to look for its serial number or other identifiers.” “

        20. Most all of the 9/11 anomalies disappear once you remove planes from the equation. There are “reasons” why anyone familiar with 9/11 research would continue to embrace the government/TV propaganda version. Ask yourself: why is someone bringing up so-called “evidence” of plane parts photos – which seasoned researchers have debunked years ago?

        21. I don’t know, but I’m betting this disappearing Malaysian airliner is going to come back to haunt us. Planes disappearing into buildings is a proven strategy for destroying freedom, so why not use it again. The only problem being the perpetrators would have to fake the collision again, lest people see what really happens when a plane crashes.

        22. Terry there are airplane parts BLOCKS away from the OTHER side of the building, ie they are supposed to have gone right through the building including the thick core and still retained substantial kinetic energy. And the landing gear was not out before the ‘hit’. Funny that part would be the only one to fall down on the front side.
          Presumably they didnt want to dump the parts too close to the hot spot and risk the fakery to be exposed.
          The most probable reason for not using a real airliner for hitting the building was they didnt think it would be a success and the airplane would just be massacred and fall down mostly. Thus precluding the scenario where some unfortunate individual in the chain of command would have to follow the protocol for demolition in order to prevent an expected megadeath in New York.
          It was very crucial to the plotters that it would look like a nuclear warhead might have been landed in the building (hidden inside the airliner) and since they only had minutes to reflect they panicked and pushed the button just as intended by the plotters.

        23. Peter,

          Landing gear & engine cores are the strongest steel parts of any plane.
          They often break away and always survive. Several smaller fragments and even a plane window frame or two also made it out of the towers.

          While I am absolutely certain that “no plane” hit the Pentagon, I am equally certain that two planes did in “fact” hit the WTC twin towers.

          Your speculation of a Nuclear bomb as a cause for collapse is strangely interesting, but fails to have anything like solid evidence (radiation or flash/blast) to support it.

          We are in agreement that planes did not cause the buildings to collapse, but it should be obvious to any serious researchers, that a nuclear device didn’t either.

        24. After having read Terry Conspiracy’s comment dated MARCH 19, 2014 AT 6:01 PM and having compared it with my preceeding comment that he refers to I unfortunately have to draw a conclusion about Terrys role here. Although I am not being explicit I think the good folks on this blogg will get the message anyway. I dont wish to insult anybody. And I dont if this is a permanent role of his.

  18. The Judy Wood video changes a lot of how I will think about 911. I had better luck looking it up on youtube than using the vimeo link. If such a technology exists, and could be used with such precision 13 years ago, what do the owners of such technology have today? When will they ask for the unconditional surrender of the human race?(and no, I’m not talking about space aliens).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *