Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.


Tag: Toxic dust WTC

April 24, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

The events on September 11, 2001, changed the world. It was the excuse for the US government to launch military attacks on seven Middle Eastern countries, causing civilian casualties in the millions and sending waves of Muslim refugees into the Western world. The US government wasted trillions of dollars destroying countries and murdering women and children, while public infrastructure in the US deteriorated, Americans’ homes were foreclosed, and American health needs went unattended. 9/11 was also the excuse for the destruction of the protection that the US Constitution provided to ensure the liberty of the American citizen. Today no American has the protection of the civil liberty that the Constitution guarantees.

On September 11, 2001, when a neighbor called and told me to turn on the TV, I stopped what I was doing and turned on the TV. What I saw was the two World Trade Center Towers blowing up. I had often enjoyed lunch in the rooftop restaurant in one of the towers across the street from my Wall Street Journal office.

A miniscule by comparison frail aluminum airliner hit one massive steel tower and then another aluminum airliner hit the other. There were some plumes of orange outside the buildings. Then approximately after one hour, less in one case, more in the other, the two towers exploded floor by floor as they fell into their own footprint.

This was precisely the way the news anchors described what I was seeing. “It looks exactly like a controlled demolition,” the news anchors reported. And indeed it did. As a Georgia Tech student I had witnessed a controlled demolition, and that is what I saw on television, just as that was what the news anchors saw.

Later that day Larry Silverstein who owned, or held the lease on, the World Trade Center, explained on TV that the free fall collapse in the late afternoon of the third WTC skyscraper, Building 7, into its own footprint was a conscious decision to “pull” the building. Pull is the term used by controlled demolition to describe a building wired with explosives to be destroyed. Building 7 had not been hit by an airliner, and suffered only minor and very limited office fires. Silverstein’s statement was afterwards corrected by authorities to mean that the firemen were pulled from the building. However, many videos show the firemen already out of the building with the fireman stating that the building was going to be brought down.

As there is no doubt whatsoever that Building 7 was wired for demolition, the question is why?

Because Americans are an insouciant and trusting people and confident of the inherent goodness of their country, years passed before even experts noticed that the official story stood in total contraction to known laws of physics, was in total contraction to how buildings collapse from asymmetrical damage, and could not have collapsed due to being hit by airliners as the buildings met all code requirements for withstanding airliner collusions. Many did not even know that the third skyscraper, Building 7, had collapsed.

Professor Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, was among the first to see that the official story was pure fantasy. His reward for speaking out was to have his tenure contract bought out by BYU, many believe under orders from the federal government backed up with the threat that all federal support of science at BYU would be terminated unless Stephen Jones was.

Cynthia McKinney, a black woman who represented a Georgia congressional district in the US House of Representatives was either much brighter or much braver than her white colleagues. She raised obvious questions about 9/11, questions begging to be asked, and lost her seat.

Approximately five years after 9/11, San Francisco architect Richard Gage noticed that the three WTC buildings did not fall down in any way consistent with the official explanation. He formed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, currently about 3,000 members. This group includes high rise architects and structural engineers who actually are experienced in the construction of skyscrapers. In other words, they are people who know what they are talking about.

These 3,000 experts have said that the official explanation of the collapse of three skyscrapers stands in contradiction to known laws of physics, architecture, and structural engineering

In other words, the official explanation is totally impossible. Only an uneducated and ignorant public can believe the official 9/11 story. The US population fits this description.

A&E for 9/11 Truth is gradually gaining assent from architects and engineers. It is very difficult for an architect or engineer to support the truth, because the American population, which includes patriotic construction companies, whose employees fly American flags on their trucks, don’t want to hire architects and engineers who are “enemies of America aligned with Arab terrorists.” In America, if you tell the truth, you are in great danger of losing your customers and even your life.

Think now about physicists. How many physics faculties do you know that are not dependent on federal grants, usually for military-related work? The same for chemistry. Any physics professor who challenged the official story of 9/11 with the obvious fact that the story contravenes known laws of physics would endanger not only his own career but the careers of his entire department.

Truth in America is extremely costly to express. It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.

Our masters know this, and thus they can dispense with truth at will. Moreover, any expert courageous enough to speak the truth is easily branded a “conspiracy theorist.”

Who comes to his defense? Not his colleagues. They want rid of him as quickly as possible. Truth is a threat to their careers. They can’t afford to be associated with truth. In America, truth is a career-killing word.

In America, truth is becoming a synonym for “Russian agent.” Only Russian Agents tell the truth, which must mean that truth is an enemy of America. Lists are being prepared of websites that speak truth to power and thus are seditious. In the United States today people can lie at will without consequence, but it is deadly to tell the truth.

Support A&E for 9/11 Truth. These are heroic people. 9/11 was the manufactured excuse for the neoconservatives’ 16 years of war crimes against millions of Muslims peoples, remnants of which now seek refuge in Europe.

Neoconservatives are a tiny number of people. No more than a dozen are of any consequence. Yet they have used America to murder millions. And now they are fomenting war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The world would never survive such a war.

Are Americans so insouciant that they will stand aside while a dozen neoconservative Zionists destroy the world?

An Independent Analysis
Written by P S Kayley BA (Hons)

July 2016


The aim of this study was to assess the validity of a hitherto unknown risk in the realm of operational fire-fighting. A risk revealed as a result of a $50 million government investigation into a building collapse in 2001. This investigation identified that normal office fires, involving ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels, can cause a fire-protected steel-framed building to suddenly and completely collapse during an operational fire-fighting incident.

In order to reach a responsible and reliable understanding of the true level of risk, this investigation has attempted to honestly and objectively follow all of the evidence and the data, wherever it might lead, without prejudice. The details and evidence from within the original government reports, independent expert reports regarding the collapse and its circumstances, as well as the experiences and evidence of witnesses and emergency personnel present at the incident, have all been included and evaluated.

… snip …

A summary of identified risks to Operational Firefighters:

● A normal office fire, involving ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels, caused a steel-framed fire-protected building to suddenly and completely collapse.
● The collapse was not attributed to design or construction faults, damaged fire protection or significant structural damage. “Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.”-NIST
● The collapse was not due to aircraft impact, explosives, bombs or missiles.
● The existence of prolonged static fires from stored fuels was eliminated as a possible cause.
● “This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires” – Executive Summary – WTC7 Final Report, NIST (2008).
● Building height was not a dominant causal factor.
● The building employed the same design and construction as buildings of its type in the UK and worldwide.
● NIST made many recommendations for building design code changes, upgrades to fire protection and emergency procedures, thus indicating their view of a possible reoccurrence.

UK Fire Service Considerations

● Current UK Fire Service procedures rely on two main assumptions:
○ Normal office fires cannot cause the complete collapse of a steel framed building.
○ Any steel framed building will demonstrate signs of failure for a considerable period of time prior to any form of collapse. Signs would include sagging of steel beams and columns.

The NIST report of this collapse identifies these assumptions to be FALSE and DANGEROUS. If correct, an unrecognised risk has been identified and must be addressed in legal compliance with the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

… snip …


Since these events 15 years ago, Firefighters’ operational procedures have not been changed for fighting high-rise fires. In the UK, local government ‘Stay put’ policies, which advise residents in high-rise buildings and flats to remain in their property when there is a fire, have not been modified. The building design regulations have not changed and equivalent buildings have not been retrofitted with modifications to prevent a recurrence of Building 7’s collapse.

However, if NIST’s official report of what happened to Building 7 is maintained by our authorities as a valid explanation of events, in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act and other related legislation, all of the above factors need to be questioned and critically reassessed as a matter of great importance by fire services, local housing authorities, and building standards regulators.

Generally, as a rule, we tend to rely upon science rather than unfounded belief to understand our world. Science is defined as the search for truth. When a scientific truth is found, fundamentally this is always based upon a preponderance of positive probabilities. We hold these findings as true until we find a good reason to believe otherwise. A true and honest scientist will always accept questioning of his hypothesis and continue to test its validity. From my observations of NIST’s analysis of this collapse, observations shared by many highly qualified professionals in their respective fields, an honest scientific approach has not been pursued.

The deliberate and immediate removal and destruction of nearly all the evidence at the scene of the crime, the failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, combined with the catalogue of errors and omissions in the NIST report, all aggregate to destroy any credibility this report might hope to convey.

The claims made by NIST that the sprinkler operation and fire-fighting efforts failed, due to poor water supplies and limited resources, were false and only serve to further diminish their credibility. This building’s fires could have been contained and extinguished well in advance of the alleged structural failures.

The experts’ evidence of the building’s uninhibited gravitational free fall acceleration, its symmetrical collapse perfectly into its own footprint, witness testimonials of explosions, evidence of explosive residues, and ‘certain foreknowledge’ of the building’s collapse, all points compellingly towards an alternative hypothesis – a deliberate case of controlled demolition. A hypothesis which, if the scientific principle of Occam’s razor had been applied, should have been the first to have been tested.

This analysis has been completed without being influenced or prejudiced by the details of the politics in the background of this incident. The data and the evidence alone dictated what the study discovered. Unfortunately, it’s an unavoidable fact that this case is connected with politics and, speaking personally, I can say with open sincerity that I trust Newtonian Physics and the laws of nature infinitely more than I trust politics. As previously stated, gravity is not just a good idea, it’s a law. In agreement with thousands of expert architects, engineers, and scientists, the findings of this analysis identify that the risks to Firefighters at this incident were not due to faulty architecture, sub- standard engineering, untested fire-fighting procedures or a miraculous fire-induced building demolition.

The sudden and complete collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building due to normal fires presents as little risk to operational Firefighters today as it did in the days before this event.

Read entire report

Sept. 28, 2015
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

We have scrutinized what has been presented in various publications as evidence that nuclear blasts occurred at the WTC, but found none of the arguments substantiated.

New FAQ cites the absence of any evidence consistent with the nuclear hypothesis

By AE911Truth WritingTeam
Several authors promote the claim that nuclear blasts destroyed the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. Suggested scenarios are, for example, that fission bombs, fusion-boosted fission bombs, neutron bombs, thermonuclear bombs, pure fusion deuterium-tritium bombs, or exploding nuclear reactors, caused its destruction.

We provide a detailed reply in our “FAQ #15: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Why does AE911Truth not endorse that claim?”

Devices to detect elevated levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are neither large nor difficult to use, and are available online.

In Sections I and II of this FAQ, we discuss two independent reasons why we regard the probability that any nuclear blasts occurred at the WTC as close to zero. We also address arguments that have been brought forward with respect to these two reasons.

In Section III, we consider problems found in publications we have reviewed that promote nuclear destruction scenarios, and we assess four claims that have been presented frequently in such publications.

Click here to read the FAQ. At the end of the document are footnotes that provide references, examples, and further explanations and arguments.

Read more

May 31, 2015
Architects and Engineers for 911/Truth

NIST’s official “normal office fire” explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 does not explain the 47-story tower’s stunning implosion and free-fall acceleration. That’s because NIST has ignored the data that does explain these extraordinary features — the evidence of controlled demolition.

PART 5: How Skyscrapers Are Really Imploded

By Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns

Editor’s Note: This fascinating and provocative technical article on NIST’s mistreatment of the World Trade Center Building 7 evidence is broken down into a series of six articles. The sixth and final installment, below, is PART 5: How Skyscrapers Are Really Imploded. The first installment was the INTRODUCTION. The second installment was PART 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7’s “Scooped-Out” 10 Stories. The third installment was PART 2: NIST’s Fictitious Gouge Launches Design Flaw Myth and Collapse Initiation Theory. The fourth installment was PART 3: Trusses & Tanks—Popular Mechanics Helps NIST Create More Myths. The fifth installment was PART 4: Independent Analysis Disproves NIST’s New Thermal Expansion Hypothesis.

In PART 4, we demonstrated that NIST’s hypothetical girder walk-off event contradicted its own data, and therefore that NIST’s column #79 buckling scenario could not have happened. Thus, we proved that NIST had no evidence upon which to base its claim of how the collapse of WTC 7 was triggered.

Now let us ask: Did NIST’s explanation of how this initiating event led to the observed collapse of the entire building also contradict its own data? The short answer: “Yes.”

For a more detailed answer, we must first assume, for the sake of argument, that column #79 buckled and that this event did lead to NIST’s hypothesis for how the complete collapse of WTC 7 occurred. NIST presumed that a localized collapse of the northeast section of the building set off a progressive collapse of the core, and that this 7.6-second core collapse sequence (see NIST’s time line) occurred while the building’s exterior remained undistorted. Specifically, NIST claimed that the buckling of core column #79 led to the subsequent buckling of columns 80 and 81, then to the collapse of the east penthouse, and finally to the failure of the entire core (see Figure 19).

NIST’s presumption leaves us with this obvious question: Did the hypothetical progressive core collapse match the distinguishing features of the observed implosion of WTC 7?

The answer is a resounding “No,” according to more than 2,350 architects and engineers and hundreds of other building professionals and physical scientists who belong to AE911Truth. In their expert eyes, NIST’s computer simulation proved that WTC 7 most certainly did not collapse according to NIST’s hypothetical progressive collapse scenario.

Read more

9/11 Exposed is an educational documentary that examines the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on September 11th, 2001.

*Warning* Explicit Language. This film may not be suitable for younger viewers.

Released: April 21, 2015

Rethink 911
Remember building 7
AE 911 Truth
Loose change 911
William 911
911 A conspiracy theory

Other 9/11 Documentaries:

9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (Free 1-hour version)

Loose Change Final Cut

September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor

Fabled Enemies

Who Killed John O’Neill?

9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009)

9/11: Press for Truth (2006)

Dubai skyscraper fire on Feb. 20, 2015 at a residential building called the Torch. Despite the fire, the building didn’t collapse.

Another hotel in Dubai that burned but didn’t collapse into its own footprint. This was in 2012.

In contrast, three buildings with minor burns collapsed into a pile of dust in New York on 911. In fact, the buildings were putting out black smoke because they were starved for oxygen.

In the photo below, note that the building is not on fire, it is exploding which is why all you see IS DUST – NOT FIRE.

Another photo of the dust from the exploding buildings.

February 15, 2015
by Kevin Ryan

Science has been misused for political purposes many times in history. However, the most glaring example of politically motivated pseudoscience—that employed by U.S. government scientists to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC)—continues to be ignored by many scientists. As we pass the 10th anniversary of the introduction of that account, it is useful to review historic examples of fake science used for political purposes and the pattern that defines that abuse.

An early example of pseudoscience used to promote a political agenda was the concerted Soviet effort to contradict evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance. For nearly 45 years, the Soviet government used propaganda to foster unproven theories of agriculture promoted by its minister of agriculture, Trofim Lysenko. Scientists seeking favor with the Soviet hierarchy produced fake experimental data in support of Lysenko’s false claims. Scientific evidence from the fields of biology and genetics was banned in favor of educational programs that taught only Lysenkoism and many biologists and geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. This propaganda-fueled program of anti-science continued for over forty years, until 1964, and spread to other countries including China.

pseudoscienceIn the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway describe several other examples of the misuse of science, spanning from the 1950s to the present. They show how widely respected scientists participated in clearly non-scientific efforts to promote the agendas of big business and big government. Examples include the tobacco industry’s misuse of science to obfuscate the links between smoking and cancer, the military industrial complex’s use of scientists to support the scientifically indefensible Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and several abuses of environmental science.

As Oreskes and Conway made clear, science is about evidence. “It is about claims that can be, and have been, tested through scientific research—experiment, experience, and observation—research that is then subject to critical review by a jury of scientific peers.” In science, if experiments performed do not support a hypothesis, that hypothesis must be rejected. If conclusions fail to pass peer-review due to a lack of supportive evidence or the discovery of evidence that directly contradicts them, those conclusions must be rejected.

From Lysenkoism through the examples given by Oreskes and Conway, politically motivated pseudoscience demonstrates a pattern of characteristics as follows.

There is a lack of experiments.
The results of experiments are ignored or contradicted in the conclusions.
There is either no peer-review or peer-reviewer concerns are ignored.
The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data.
False conclusions are supported by marketing or media propaganda.
Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence are ignored.

All six of these characteristics of pseudo-science are exhibited by the U.S. government investigation into what happened at the WTC on September 11th, 2001. That investigation was conducted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and it had much in common with the examples given by Oreskes and Conway. As with the false science that supported tobacco use, millions of lives were lost as a result—in this case through the “War on Terror.” Like support for the Strategic Defense Initiative, the abuses were focused on supporting the military-industrial complex. And as with the environmental examples, NIST’s manipulations affect everyone on the planet because they prop up a never-ending war.

In terms of historical experience, the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers was unprecedented. No tall building had ever experienced global collapse for any reason other than explosive demolition and none ever has since that time. In terms of observation, nearly everyone who examines the videos from the day recognizes the many similarities to explosive demolition. Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of the demolition theory is that the NIST WTC Reports, which took up to seven years to produce, exhibit all six of the characteristics of politically motivated pseudoscience.

The lack of experiment:

NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions on WTC Building 7. Its primary conclusion, that a few steel floor beams experienced linear thermal expansion thereby shearing many structural connections, could have easily been confirmed through physical testing but no such testing was performed. Moreover, other scientists had performed such tests in the past but since the results did not support NIST’s conclusions, those results were ignored(see peer-review comments below)

The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions:

For the Twin Towers, steel temperature tests performed on the few steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit, This is more than a thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST’s hypothesis. NIST responded by exaggerating temperatures in its computer model.

Another key requirement of NIST’s explanation for the Twin Towers was that floor assemblies had sagged severely under thermal stress. Floor model tests conducted by my former company Underwriters Laboratories showed that the floor assemblies would sag only 3 to 4 inches, even after removal of all fireproofing and exposure to much higher temperatures than existed in the buildings. NIST responded by exaggerating the results—claiming up to 42-inches worth of floor assembly sagging in its computer model.

After criticism of its draft report in April 2005, NIST quietly inserted a short description of shotgun tests conducted to evaluate fireproofing loss in the towers. These results also failed to support NIST’s conclusions because the shotgun blasts were not reflective of the distribution or trajectories of the aircraft debris. Additionally, the tests suggested that the energy required to “widely dislodge” fireproofing over five acre-wide floors—required by NIST’s findings—was simply not available.

Read more

Jenna Orkin is the author of “The Moron’s Guide To Global Collapse.” After 9/11, she was among the first to question the EPA’s announcement that the air was safe to breathe. She went on to co-found the World Trade Center Environmental Organization as well as other lower Manhattan activist organizations that revealed and testified to the EPA’s lies. Later, she wrote for, the website founded by 9/11 investigative journalist Mike Ruppert who sadly killed himself in April of this year.

by Kevin Barrett
Press TV
July 16, 2013

Is this the world’s worst case of insurance fraud…ever?

That’s what many are saying, as the world’s biggest real-estate swindler and the world’s most corrupt judge meet in a Manhattan courtroom on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. At issue: billions of dollars in loot from the demolition of the World Trade Center complex on September 11th, 2001.

World Trade Center owner Larry Silverstein – who confessed on national television to “pulling” World Trade Center Building 7 – will appear in the courtroom of Judge Alvin Hellerstein at 500 Pearl St. in New York City. The non-jury trial, which is expected to last three days, will decide whether Silverstein is entitled to recover $3.5 billion from airlines and airport-related companies, in addition to the $4.9 billion he has already received for his “losses” on September 11th.

The question on everyone’s mind is: Why is Silverstein claiming that airliners destroyed his buildings, when he has already confessed to demolishing at least one of them himself? In the 2002 PBS documentary “America Rebuilds,” Silverstein admitted to complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC-7, a 47-story skyscraper that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.

The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the Rosetta Stone of 9/11. Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that the government’s explanation – that a few small office fires somehow destroyed WTC-7 – is a non-starter. Building 7, these experts say, was obviously taken down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted. (A nationwide ad campaign called “Re-Think 9/11” will remind millions of Americans about Building 7 this September.)

Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein has already received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone, as well as over $4 billion for the rest of the Trade Center complex. That $861 million for WTC-7 was paid on the basis of Silverstein’s claim that airplanes were somehow responsible for making Building 7, which was not hit by any plane, disappear at free-fall acceleration.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud