SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

“Pull It” – The Best 9/11 Evidence

by Brian Dunning, Jan 15 2009

…And the 9/11 files just never seem to close.

One of the pieces of “evidence” that 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that the buildings were brought down by explosives is the admission by leaseholder Larry Silverstein that he gave the order to “pull it.” Many 9/11 “Truthers” consider this to be the most damning proof. Silverstein said it in a PBS documentary called America Rebuilds – A Year at Ground Zero:

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

So, let me get this straight. The Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government conspiracy secretly prepared Building 7 for demolition without the knowledge of anyone who worked there; and then on the Big Day, they dug up Larry Silverstein for some reason and designated him to be the go/no-go triggerman; had him give the demolition order to the fire department for some reason; and then ordered him to go on national television and broadcast that that’s what he had done.

Makes a lot of sense. I don’t know how I missed this one.

I remember that when the CIA assassinated Kennedy, they had the leaseholder of the book depository go on the evening news and announce that he gave the order to Oswald and the other CIA sharpshooters to open fire.

And when the British royal family murdered Princess Diana, they recruited the guy who owned the tunnel to be the ultimate decision maker; had him decide when and if to give the order to the SAS “paparazzi” to crash her Mercedes; and then had him go on the BBC to formally announce his involvement. It was all part of the perfect crime.

I know this might not seem logical to some of you, so I’ve outlined some of the basic explanations for why this was indeed the perfect plan. Here are some of the questions that this Perfect Plan might raise, and the answers why it does make sense even though you just don’t see it at first.

Q: Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government had a lot of resources at their disposal, and a lot invested. Why would they seek out some random New York developer to be the ultimate decision maker on their big day?

A: Because the buildings were Silverstein’s pet project. It’s one thing to kill thousands of people and destroy billions of dollars worth of New York City, but hurting the feelings of some random developer was out of the question. Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government felt that it would be a nice gesture to him personally if they let him be the ultimate decision maker.

Q: Why did the triggerman give the demolition order to the fire department, instead of the CIA demolition crew?

A: Because it was the fire department’s men who were most at risk. Killing 70% of the firemen was part of the plan; killing 75% was considered “over the top” though. Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government felt that allowing the fire department to actually execute the demolition would allow them to save a small crew of firefighters so there would be someone to pick through the wreckage in emotional TIME Magazine cover photos.

Q: Why did Larry Silverstein go on national television to announce that he’d personally given the destruct order?

A: This was to give Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government “plausible deniability”. Silverstein was grateful that they’d allowed him to be the triggerman, so he wanted to return the favor by setting himself up as the fall guy if anyone ever discovered the conspiracy. If anyone ever did uncover the “9/11 Truth”, Bush and Rumsfeld could say “Hey, we didn’t know anything about it; it was that Silverstein guy, see he even admitted it!”

Hopefully these explanations will help some of you understand why Silverstein’s famous “Pull it” order is indeed the best proof of the 9/11 conspiracy.

60 Responses to ““Pull It” – The Best 9/11 Evidence”

  1. moonflake says:

    Or… and I’m just spitballing here… perhaps this was just a case of the fire chief making a professional assessment that the fire in WTC7 was completely out of control, and giving the leaseholder of the building a courtesy call to inform him that the fire department was ‘pulling’ its personnel out of the building and giving up all hope of trying to prevent the property from being utterly destroyed. And the leaseholder agreeing that it was the best thing to do.

    Naaaaah… too unrealistic. Forget I said it.

  2. patrik.e says:

    Sarcasm and skepticism are my two favourite things in the world. Nice.

  3. How dare you use logic and reason to make attack such theories….

    You’re obviously being paid by Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government

    Or not.

    Seriously though, that was some good stuff.

  4. Modemac says:

    Actually, I’m amazed anyone had the time to call Silverstein at all. After all, they were busy calling 4,000 non-descript Jews and telling them not to come to work that morning…oh, wait a second. “Silverstein” is a Jewish name! Obviously the call he got was one of those 4,000! It all makes sense now — it wasn’t Bush/Bilderberg/Illuminati/Rumsfeld/Government who masterminded it. It was ZOG…the same ZOG who secretly built nuclear reactor in India that malfunctioned, causing the earthquake that triggured the 2004 Pacific tsunami.

  5. Ranson says:

    One of my friends and I often discuss our favorite flavors of 9/11 crazy. I’m partial to the space-based force beam, while he likes the hologram-cloaked missiles. To each his own, I guess.

  6. moonflake says:

    I’m a fan of the Single Plane Theory myself. One plane, flown by remote, hit the WTC, went right through it, circled around, went through the other tower, flew over the pentagon and launched a missile, then crashed in a field.

  7. Cambias says:

    I hope these comments have moderation, because I suspect we’re about to get a tsunami of wackos.

  8. GL says:

    A Tsunami of Wackos is my favorite band.

  9. onezeno says:

    This article makes fun of 9/11 truth but in no way refutes it. Silverstein makes comments that sound suspiciously like the decision to execute a controlled demolition on a building where the collapse looks and acts suspiciously like a controlled demolition. It is not absurd to be suspicious. What is absurd is to say that the deaths of JFK and Diana are somehow further proof that buildings naturally collapse from small fires in perfect symmetry at free-fall speeds. That some far-flung conspiracy theories exist does not negate the fact that the evidence does not seem to corroborate the official theory of 9/11.

    • Tim says:

      Well the reason that the article mocks 9/11 truthers rather than refutes it is because this magazine/website has already dedicated many articles to discrediting this conspiracy theory. Did the collapse look like a controlled demolition? No, of course not. The only similarity was when the top of the building fell in which all parts of the building fell together because the spot where the plane hit knocked out its foundation. Every part of the collapse beneath that point look like the building was pulverized. The windows and walls of the building do not fall in sync together but rather are crushed by the thousands of tons of concrete and steel coming down with gravity. Furthermore the structure of the building itself was not built to withstand much except its own weight so when the collapse began it took out the whole of the building. What else would you expect, a pile of 30 floors of building sitting neatly on top?

      You are not applying critical thinking. You are not placing the burden of proof on those that make the proposition. You are asserting a proposition and then assuming it to be true placing the burden of proof on others to disprove it and dedicating all of your thoughts to discrediting any challenge in order to maintain your conclusion. You have your reasoning process backwards which is why you are getting it wrong (which is why people are posting articles like this mocking you, although not YOU specifically). When huge chunks of multi-ton concrete and steel hit building 7 at terminal velocity it caused a great deal of damage. The fires quickly spread in the office building (where the sprinklers were not working because the pipes were cut off from the damage) in which paper and various hydrocarbon based plastics began to burn. The fire heated the steel which reduced its structural integrity and the expansion of the steel under heat reduced the structural integrity of the concrete it was reinforcing.

      Now the area wasn’t quarantined after the building collapsed, they were looking for as many volunteers as they could get. Where are the blasting caps? Where is the evidence of explosives? Who crashed the planes into the buildings? We have evidence for who crashed the planes into the buildings. We have confessions from the terrorists themselves and from coordinators of the attack like Osama Bin Laden who are still at large (while others like Khalid Sheik Mohammed have been captured).

      The fact that other weird (and offensive) conspiracy theories exist does not disprove another weird (and offensive) conspiracy theory, but the conspiracy theory doesn’t have to be disproved, IT HAS TO BE PROVED! The conspiracy of 19 muslim terrorists finances by Osama Bin Laden and coordinated by Khalid Sheik Mohammed has been proven with evidence. The 9/11 truther conspiracies do not have to be disproven logically, but they have been by this website (Skepticism), Popular Mechanics (Science), and even popular shows like Penn & Teller: Bullshit! which typically express not just skepticism and science, but contrarianism as well. Look at who is refuting these claims, break out your baloney detection kit and look at your beliefs, look who is refuting them. It is not absurd to be suspicious? You’re on a website called Skeptic friend with a bunch of woo-woo debunkers and atheists, do you really think there is a person here who doesn’t share that point? Don’t just think about your conclusion, think about your thinking. Are you looking for confirmatory evidence to reinforce your current beliefs or are you seeking out evidence that might contradict your current beliefs? Are you seeking objective truth or are you trying to win converts? Are you defending a conclusion or are you defending a reasoning process?

      You need to focus on the reasoning process because if you got that wrong then you will never come to the right conclusion.

  10. Abelardo Duarte says:

    Ah, great post, just what I needed with my coffee this morning.

  11. BillDarryl says:

    I’m a fan of the Single Plane Theory myself. One plane, flown by remote, hit the WTC, went right through it, circled around, went through the other tower, flew over the pentagon and launched a missile, then crashed in a field.

    And then it went through Governor Connelly. I’m with you.

    I hope these comments have moderation, because I suspect we’re about to get a tsunami of wackos.

    Is a “tsunami of wackos” like a murder of crows or a parliament of owls?

    This article makes fun of 9/11 truth but in no way refutes it.

    Though tongue in cheek, it refutes the claim that the “pull it” comment stands up as evidence (and incidentally, neither do any of the other 9/11 truther claims you subtly snuck into your post — small fires, free fall speeds, and perfect symmetry — stand up under scrutiny).

  12. Mastriani says:


    Why is this still a topic for discussion? The dead are dead, the buildings are gone, NYC is still NYC, and humanity is still daft and perpetually riddled with delusions.

    I speculate that the speculators of the WTC collapses are speculatively speculating that partially possible governmental collusion of as of yet unknown individuals might possibly have speculated in semi-secret, partially closed door, sort of meetings, that by maybe causing this implied, mostly unprovable scenario, they could achieve the almost omnipotence of kinda gods, which might make them mildly powerful, except that no one knows who they are, speculatively.

    Is that the plausible possibility?

  13. Jim Howard says:

    The Fire Chief who made the call to withdraw the firefighters knew the building was going to collapse. Not because he was part of the imaginary conspiracy, rather because, well before 9/11/2001, he literally wrote the book on collapsing burning buildings!

    “Collapse of Burning Buildings : A Guide to Fireground Safety”
    by Vincent Dunn

  14. Ranson says:


    Seriously? Have you seen the back of WTC7 after the towers collapsed? Half the building was gouged out. Regardless of fire, the damage from debris of the tower would have made it unsound. And, symmetrical collapse, there was no such thing that occured. The towers DID NOT land in perfect piles in their footprint (all those emergency workers killed on the surrounding streets might have something to say on that).

    Gah, the stupid, I can’t get sucked into this fight. It’s like trying to crush a brick wall with my forehead; I get a headache and the wall doesn’t move.

  15. Beelzebud says:

    What amazes me is the people that claim the Pentagon wasn’t hit by an airplane, even though it crossed over one of the busiest highways in the country. There were literally thousands of witnesses.

  16. Andres says:

    Haha, great blog.

    I think it would have been nice to have given the definition of what ‘pull-it’ really means when firefighters use the term, namely, to evacuate the building, as opposed to bring it down. Though this has been covered by Shermer before so…

    Great blog nevertheless.

  17. Phillip says:

    Did the Americans really put a man on the moon then?

  18. ejdalise says:

    It is particularly frustrating to come across what seem perfectly reasonable people, and then have them make some comment about how “the physics is impossible”, how “buildings don’t fall like that”, or mention the relative size of the planes to the buildings as each being a solid argument pointing to some sort of cover-up.

    By now, if they have not bothered looking at all the evidence, arguments, counter-arguments, and all sort of associated information freely available, I believe it’s too late to do anything but smile, nod, and slowly back away; hopefully they’re too engrossed in the argument to notice your escape.

  19. The observation by Larry Silverstein “pull it” is certainly not proof of anything. It is merely one little item that might fit into a larger puzzle.

    The questions raised by the author above are fully legitimate. They remind me of questions raised by Holocaust deniers, questions that appear facially legitimate: Where is the proof of gas chambers? Did Hitler actually give orders to exterminate Jews? But like Holocaust deniers, the intention is not to uncover the truth, but to lambast certain people. Holocaust deniers attempt through these questions to lambast Jews. The author above appears intent to lambast citizens who take seriously their civic duty by attempting to throw some light on the mass murder of 9/11. The author must be aware that the 9/11-truth movement is not run like an army, who marches according to a single leader, but consists of thousands of independent people, who work independently in a democratic manner. It is accordingly easy for anyone to discover easily refutable arguments among the thousands of arguments and facts presented by this vast movement. Nothing is easier.

    Whatever the role played by Larry Silverstein in the 9/11 story, the fact is undisputed that the US government has until today failed to substantiate its own legend according to which Al Qaeda members or other fanatic Muslims perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11.

    If the above author still believes this legend – peddled jointly by George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden – he is welcome to produce the evidence I have been looking for. I am referring to evidence proving that any of the 19 alleged Muslim hijackers, or all of them, actually boarded upon the aircraft that they allegedly crashed on 9/11. If the author cannot produce any such evidence (which I suspect), I would kindly ask him to look for another pet project in which he can enjoy employing his genuine sense of humour.

  20. Ranson says:


    Where’s Mark Roberts when you need him? Gravy could manhandle these whackaloons.

  21. j.r. reinhardt says:

    From the perspective of someone with a PhD in Forensic Chemistry, a Masters in Physics and a Masters in Qualitative Chemical Analysis, and, (to prove that there can exist in the heart of an overeducated empiricist, a modicum of silliness) a J.D. in Law, and, oh yeah, some 8000 hours of experience as an airline transport pilot,there are simply too many questionable but as yet officially unquestioned anomalies in the official account of that day. I would really like to see more video than 5 frames of a highly redacted video that may show something sailing across the Pentagon lawn. And would it be too much to ask to see an aircraft part with a serial number, or, actually, any part other than the famous first stage compressor hub from a CFM56, which is an engine never used on a 757. And the Digital Flight Data Recorder Data, either as compiled by the NTSB, or in raw comma-delimited form is grossly inconsistent with the “official” version. Evading these questions is more consistent with homeopathic medical practices than the practices of a responsile government.

  22. Dwight says:

    The sad truth is the simple truth, a few people with a religious and political agenda, flew two planes into the towers, the resulting fire caused a catastrophic failure of the buildings, nice and simple no need to make tings more difficult than need be . But some people don’t have the intelligence to see the facts that are laid out right in front of them.

  23. James says:

    @ j.r. reinhardt

    Please consider visiting:

    and pose your long since answered queries there. I am afraid you are grossly misinformed.

  24. Well, that was a pretty disappointing tsunami of wackos.

  25. fatherdaddy says:

    There are no pictures of the hijackers smiling as they get on the planes. I guess that means they couldn’t get on the planes. I have yet to see a picture of me getting on a plane, so, I guess I’ve never been on a plane.

    A plane that is moving at hundreds of miles per hour should leave plenty of images on a camera that caught the shot from the side. All security cameras are capable of high speed photography, right?

    It just takes a little common sense, that the Truthers don’t have, to see the flaws in those arguments.

  26. Sprawn! says:

    This aspect of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement (by the way, I refer to this “movement” in the other sense of the word…) illustrates perfectly a common trope in many conspiracies. I call it the “Diabolical Moron”. The logical fallacy is that of inconsistent and dropped premises. It is simply not possible for someone to take part in the planning and execution of 9/11 and then turn around and brag about it. In one sentence the sinister cabal is inventing laser powered mind control hologram robots (which by the way, if you had laser/mind-control/hologram robots why would you need to blow up buildings? Couldn’t your cabal just run the world with their army of nano/laser/mind-control/hologram robots?) and ten seconds later oops… they blurt it out on TV. D’oh!

  27. Ted Max says:


    One thing that would be neat for the next time something big and suspicious happens would be for us to express, in advance, what evidence we would consider to be sufficient to prove it happened the way the government claims it did.

    So, the next time a terrorist attack happens or a major political figure is shot or something like that, what evidence would be consider necessary to explain it? We have to ask this question, because I’m guessing that “a perfect explanation with no anomalies of any kind and unbelievably detailed in all aspects” is kind of unrealistic.

    From what I can tell, to believe the government’s 9/11 story, you require: 1) Ample video of the event including all relevant angles, capable of being slowed down, etc., with no loss of detail. 2) Lots of parts of planes with easily recognized serial numbers after slamming into buildings and then exploding. 3) Perfectly consistent transcripts, from all sources, of sometimes erratic information that is also perfectly preserved after slamming into buildings and exploding.

    And all of this has to be done with no misinformation being spread by conspiracy theorists about “missing” evidence that in fact exists in quantity, etc.

    I just think it’s interesting to imagine IN ADVANCE what information we would require to prove that something happened, rather than waiting around until after the fact, seeing what is (or supposedly is) missing, and then claiming it is required.

    As people have already pointed out, going by your standards, few of us can prove that we ever boarded a plane, that those planes had engines, or that anything we claim to have said or any information we have generated is what we say it is.

  28. Ted, even if such thorough evidence were available after the next big tragedy, the conspiracy theorists would just claim it’s too good, too thorough, and they’d consider its quality to be evidence of… conspiracy.

    With conspiracists, there is no appreciable level of disproof of their theories – they just move the goalposts. For many, just the attempt to debunk a conspiracy theory constitutes a conspiracy in itself, a conspiracy of disinformation. Their Prime Directive is that there WILL be a conspiracy, any way we can create one. It’s their raison d’etre.

    In fact, I’d bet my 401K that at least one conspiracy nut somewhere in the world has written the names Ted Max and Devil’s Advocate in his little list of probable conspirators….

  29. Winston Smith says:

    The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 sure looks like a controlled demolition:

    This building was 47 stories tall, 610 feet (186 meters) in height.

    The key to any rational discussion of this issue are the laws of physics as they pertain to freefall. You can download a little freeware program that calculates the time it takes for an object to hit the ground from any height in a vacuum here:

    The roof of WTC Building 7, if it fell completely unimpeded in a vacuum, with no concrete and or steel structure at all underneath it to slow it down, would hit the ground in 6.16 seconds.

    In fact, the penthouse hit the ground in about 7 seconds. Don’t believe me? Get out a stopwatch and time that video, or any of the other videos showing the event on Youtube.

    So hundreds of tons of concrete and steel only delayed the fall of the roof by about 1 second, compared to freefall in a vacuum. And the very bright people with their college degrees who run this website don’t even question this.

    Brian Dunning, a computer scientist and engineer, stated on his own website,

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws.”

    Well Brian, with your computer science and engineering background, how do you explain this extraordinary claim? That hundreds of tons of concrete and steel only slowed the collapse of the roof by one second compared to freefall in a vacuum?

    This, of course, is clearly a physical impossibility.


    “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
    -Nobel Prize winner Saul Bellow


    The collapse of the Twin Towers shows almost identical anomalies.

    With 110 floors and a height of 1,368 ft (417.0 m), we get a freefall time for the roof in a vacuum of 9.23 seconds.

    In fact the North Tower completely disappears from view in about 11 seconds. Get out a stopwatch and go to Youtube.

    Looking at it another way, take 110 floors and divide by 11 seconds. Each floor was completely demolished in one tenth of one second.

    Hundreds of thousands of pounds of concrete and steel complelty demolished in 1/10 of a second. And this happens 110 times in sequence without any interruption.

    Clearly a completely normal event. The twin towers support structure, millions of pounds of steel beams, each the diameter of a small truck, don’t even slow the fall by one second per floor.

    If they did, the collapse would take about 2 minutes, not 11 seconds.


    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws.”

    “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”

  30. Sprawn! says:

    “In fact, I’d bet my 401K that at least one conspiracy nut somewhere in the world has written the names Ted Max and Devil’s Advocate in his little list of probable conspirators…”

    That’s just what you want, isn’t it? What are you planning?

  31. Mastriani says:

    That’s just what you want, isn’t it? What are you planning?

    Fantastically well played, Sprawn. That’s exactly what this topic needs.

  32. [DA scrawls "Sprawn" on his little list.......]

  33. Mastriani says:

    [DA scrawls "Sprawn" on his little list.......]

    Oh noes, he has a list. {forsees movie, “Centigrade DA”, trailer coming soon}

    “Alas poor Sprawn, I knew thee … err, by anonymous internets tag?”

  34. Courtney Franklin says:

    I have noticed a few of 9/11 deniers I know have stopped living in denial.

  35. British Guy says:

    I do not think there is enough evedence to say the USA presedent was in on 9/11. but I will say there are some odd things like.

    Time the building took to fall, also the way the fall with regards to building seven if you watch it the buildings back was broken first and then it falls into its foot print, I have only seen this in demo work on a building, Also if you look at the clearing work done on ground zero you will see melted beams at perfect 45 degrees which is also used in building demo work.

    two planes did fly in to the buildings (one each) as to who was flying them I do not know. The pentagon building was not hit with a jet they claim as it just does not add up, where are the two engines, where is the tail, the whole created was two small for the type of plane which was stated. If the wings fell off then where are they.

    I do think there was something odd going on with the facts put forward by the state department but some of the conclusions being put forward by others are also way out there due to no evidence to support their claims.

    to be honest something very odd is going on, what that is I doubt you will ever be able to prove it, and if you did prove what you are saying every country would turn its back on the USA, so the truth is needed but if you an prove the Presedent was in on this think about the fall out that all Americans will face for it. The Chinese are already laughing.

    In the modern world the majority are right even if they wrong, for ever person I see agree with the odd things on those tapes I see 100 say your a nut job. I doubt we will never know the full truth. I just hope those invovled die a very nasty death for the people that died on that terrable day.

  36. Frank Paulson says:

    For those that think the two main towers were brought down by explosives, I have a little experiment for you to try. All you need is a ruler. Break out one of your many videos of the first building falling. When it actually starts to fall, back up the video a few seconds. Now take your ruler and align it with the side of the building, hold it there and push play. The tower actually bends a couple of degrees BEFORE it falls. I’ve never seen a planned demolition start to fall over before the explosives were set off. If this was a “planned demolition” then why did it start to “fall over” before the explosives were set off? Coincidence? Maybe it was an unsafe building and they just “forgot” to evacuate the people first.


  37. Frank, your logic and common sense hold no meaning in the world of conspiracy.

  38. Winston mith says:

    Looking closely at the collapse of the Twin Towers, each floor was completely demolished in about one tenth of a second.

    You can’t even swat a fly in a tenth of a second. Yet hundeds of thousands of pounds of steel and concrete are reduced to rubble in this time.

    How is this remotely possible?

  39. Frank Paulson says:

    @ 38.
    Build a house of cards then take a deck of cards a drop it on top of the house. Hardly slowed it down, hey? Similar principal on a MUCH bigger scale.

    And Winston mith? Looks like you lost your S on that argument.

  40. Tom F says:

    I’m still waiting for a “rational” explanation from the troofers on how precisely a controlled demolition could be carried out since it would involve cutting away half the supports in the building, drilling holes for the charges in the remaining half and then stringing a couple of miles of det cord to wire it all together.

    All done in an occupied office building with none of the thousands of people in said building noticing… or noticing issues with the building’s stability since have it’s supports were just removed … and then have every charge go off precisely as planned in the sequence needed all while the building is on fire and being hit with tons of debris.

    All totally plausible I’m sure…

    *rolls eyes*

  41. Winston Smith says:

    I find it odd that any of the people who don’t buy into the fact that it was clearly a controlled demolition, have yet to attack the science that I have outlined above in any way .

    Nothing, repeat nothing, happens in a tenth of a second.

    Given that there were government offices, and many private offices of unknown ownership, in all those buildings, of course there was access to many parts of the building over a period of many years.

    Who had the contracts to maintain the elevators? Who did general maintenance?

    Saying it isn’t feasible is a bit of a joke.

    How about explaining the tenth of a second science?

  42. Jerry says:

    Oh Tom, how naive how can you be? Do you have proof that the building was indeed occupied? ….You do? Oh, well they were all part of the plan.

  43. Jerry says:

    The government should hire a better demolition team next time. The last team made it look too “controlled”.

  44. Rolling my eyes at Winston who equates being ignored with being unrefutable.

  45. Tom F says:



    Congratulations… you’ve just proven that you demonstrably know nothing about what it takes to set up and set off a controlled demolition of a multi-story structure.

    And as far as your “science” goes maybe you should actually read the NIST report on the WTC7 collapse where the mechanisms of the collapse are explained in detail.

    And then you can show the class some structural engineering, architectural or fire safety expert’s refutation of said report.

    Rather than the usual assortment of social science drop-outs that the troof crowd likes to trot out as their experts.

    Seriously… find just one real expert from any of those fields and post a link to his analysis here. If your right it should be so easy for you to do it.


    Well considering I’ve seen assertions from the real loons that they we’re actually holographic planes that flew into the building I suppose by extension it’s wouldn’t be much of a stretch to have holographic building occupants as well would it?


  46. Rick says:

    Machiavelli wrote, “There are many who think a wise prince ought, when he has the chance, to foment astutely some enmity, so that by suppressing it he will augment his greatness.”

    False flag terror – the ultimate weapon when you want to start an unpopular war.

    Over 560 Architects and Engineers agree that a new INDEPENDENT investigation is needed.

  47. Rick says:

    116th Peer-reviewed Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies:
    ‘The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse

    January 16, 2009
    by Steven Jones

    The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11
    “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse
    by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!

    This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review
    preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper
    supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering
    Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the
    paper should wet your interest:

    “In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers,
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three
    year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1
    and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20
    million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the
    total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies
    as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis:
    it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate
    that it is false.

  48. David Paterson says:

    “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in
    ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
    -Nobel Prize winner Saul Bellow


    What part do you ‘einsteins’ not get about the fact that the virtual freefall of the roof violates the laws of physics? Any of you got a college degree to back up your insults?

    If you jumped off the roof, air resistance would slow your fall by about a second. Yet millions of pounds of concrete and steel only slowed the fall of the roof by about a second.

    The floors in these buildings were demolished at the rate of one floor every one tenth of a second. Ten floors per second.


    Mr Brian Dunning, who started this rant, has yet to comment on the ‘science’ that would allow the collapse of all 3 buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7, to clearly violate the laws of physics.


    How about it Brian…???


    Explain to me how feefall in a vacuum for the roof of the twin towers is just over 9 seconds, and yet the roof, apparently unimpeded by millions of pounds of concrete and steel, hits the ground in 11 seconds. Don’t forget that the support structure for the towers supported its weight for decades, and in fact from an engineering standpoint had to be designed to hold several times the weight of the towers.

    Yet when it gave way it offered about the same resistance to the collapse of the roof as air.

    This is clearly a physical impossibility.

    Please explain this the magical ‘science’.


    The Twin Towers each had 47 massive steel columns that ran from the bedrock to the top floor:

    “The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.”


    Here you can see a photo of 2 of the support columns in the background during the cleanup:

    Notice how cleanly cut these massive steel columns are. Another ‘mystery’ attributed to magical ‘science’. Take a closer look and you see what looks like melted steel slag running down the the column behind the workers head.


    Massive steel columns, 47 to be exact, that offer the same resistance to the collapse of the roof as air, and are cleanly cut with melted steel running along the cut.


    And these 47 massive steel columns, engineered to support the massive structure of the Twin Towers with a substantial margin of safety, are completely demolished at the rate of one floor every one tenth of a second.

    The need for illusion is indeed deep when someone with an engineering background can simply ignore all of this


    How about it Brian Dunning…???

    Wade in her and explain how all of this was done by ‘gravity’?

  49. qbit says:

    this is stupid

  50. tanabear says:

    Brian Dunning: “One of the pieces of “evidence” that 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that the buildings were brought down by explosives is the admission by leaseholder Larry Silverstein…”

    No, this is not one of the best pieces of evidence that 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack or even that WTC7 was brought down by an engineered demolition. In fact, Jim Hoffman, one of the top 9/11 researchers, does not even use Silverstein’s statement as evidence.

    Regarding, WTC7 there are two strong pieces of evidence to show that it was brought down by a planned demolition. The first comes from Appendix C of FEMA report:

    “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”

    The authors recommended this for further study. No mention of this was ever made in NIST’s final report on WTC7.

    Secondly, in their final report, NIST conceded that WTC7 entered a period of free-fall for 2.5 seconds. Originally NIST stated,

    “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.”

    With the release of the final draft report in November they revised their incorrect conclusions. NIST, however, still continues to downplay the implications of free-fall.

    Tom F writes, “Rather than the usual assortment of social science drop-outs that the troof crowd likes to trot out as their experts.”

    It was high school physics teacher David Chandler that showed NIST was being deceptive in their final draft report. A high school physics teacher with a physics tool-kit reached more accurate conclusions than NIST’s 6 year 20 plus million dollar investigation. If I worked for NIST I would be quite embarrassed.

    Nevertheless, it should also be pointed out that NIST examined no physical evidence in their WTC7 investigation. Their six year investigation produced nothing more cartoon animation which they offered as “evidence”. How pathetic.

  51. Tom says:

    Winston, Rick, David et al.,

    When you get into an argument with these people who call themselves “skeptics” about the science of the some of the government’s claims about 9/11, you’re wasting your time.

    No amount of critical thinking, scientific facts or logic will convince these people. I mean they cite to tour bus drivers as their authorities and gurus. The real question of interest was posed by one of NASA’s top-flight engineers in a very recent article where he expressed the hope that we will see a return to honest science in the new Administration:

    With regard to the obvious junk science that Bush’s NIST and the so-called “skeptics” peddle regarding 9/11, his question was:

    “Is it a lack of understanding of science – or a lack of honesty that is the problem?”

    With Bush’s NIST – I think it is clearly a lack of honesty, but I think very few of the scientists are involved. Administration lawyers and agency chiefs were notorious for editing the scientists.

    But with the “skeptics” it is a tougher question. I mean there is not a one of them that has any significant background in physics or engineering or such disciplines. You have a lot of magicians and psychology and some bio-science even. So maybe they are just ignorant. But that’s the real question – ignorance or dishonesty?

    It’s a tough call.

  52. Winston Smith says:

    All the conspiracy theories about the collapse of World trade Centre Building 7 and the Twin Towers can be traced to the rapid spread of a deadly epidemic.

    The Centres For disease Control have identified the illnes as Extensively Lie Resistant TB, or Lie Resistant Truth Bacteria.

    Everybody exposed to this new form of TB will never believe the official story. And the most resistant strain is carried by Physics Professor Steven E. Jones ( Ph.D. in physics, Vanderbilt University, 1978) who was forced out of Brigham Young University for his research suggesting the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

    Learn more about this deadly illness in this video before it is too late to wake up:

  53. Mrpals says:

    “What part do you ‘einsteins’ not get about the fact that the virtual freefall of the roof violates the laws of physics? Any of you got a college degree to back up your insults?

    If you jumped off the roof, air resistance would slow your fall by about a second. Yet millions of pounds of concrete and steel only slowed the fall of the roof by about a second.

    The floors in these buildings were demolished at the rate of one floor every one tenth of a second. Ten floors per second. ”

    Terminal velocity varies directly with the ratio of drag to weight. More drag means a lower terminal velocity, while increased weight means a higher terminal velocity! Lets look at the Penthouse shall we, Did it hit absolute bottom when it stopped? No, in fact it landed on 109 stories of rubble. Lets look at camera distance of the videos, from their vantage point could you see the ground? NO.

    Here is one fact… 9/11 destroyed many lives, families, dreams and raped the very core of America.

    Just food for thought

  54. misinfolol says:

    “some random developer”
    Thanks for the laugh!!

    Useless article. Zero facts, no arguments, no science, no logic, no viable theories. Total trash.
    Fail harder.

  55. Roger says:

    Such closed eyes and closed minds astound me. You people who support the official story have certainly not done any research. Why? Maybe you might find the horrible truth that you’re being led by the nose by those who control every aspect of your lives. From birth you people have been conditioned to think “inside the box” your perception has been narrowed to accept nothing outside of its narrow view no matter how much solid substantiated evidence is presented, it simply runs off like water from a duck’s back. This world has been controlled by a small group of elite families, the Bush’s and the Silverstein’s are merely their puppets. The evidence for this exists, just follow the money trail, but why do we bother to inform you, you can’t deal with the truth, it’s far too frightening so you stand with your heads stuck firmly in the sand thinking that if you don’t look it may go away. You people are part of the problem, you can laugh and jeer but it won’t save you, only the truth will save you.

    • Malcolm says:

      “You people are part of the problem, you can laugh and jeer but it won’t save you, only the truth will save you.”

      Could not have said it any better myself…these people are part of the problem because of their close mindedness…

  56. Greg says:

    Eisenhower pointedly warned us about the Military-Industrial complex during his farewell speech upon leaving office. Kennedy pointedly warned us about the influence of secret societies. Two presidents back-to-back, and we all know what happened to JFK.

    No one has spoken out since, but yet we have Bush Jr. and Kerry both hailing from the Skull-and-Bones, and the obvious lack of representation from both political parties in the White House and Congress.

    But yet the purveyors of this site and ones like it have neither and balls or honesty to question the Official Version.

    You Deniers would make me sick if you weren’t so damn funny. Carry on!

  57. Malcolm says:

    I can’t help but notice that there’s a lot more insult hurling than dealing in facts on this page.

    The simple fact is that a of “firsts” happened on 9/11. Among them three building collapsing due to fire. It’s never happened before, and hasn’t happened since (I’ve seen some of the lame examples the self anointed debunkers have tried to thrown out there so spare me that.)

    Of the three buildings that fell, WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane, yet somehow this building collapses into it’s own footprint 8 hours later. Aside from the half baked reasoning provided self anointed debunkers, no logical explanation has ever been provided.

    If you’re ready to deal in facts, send me a reply….if not, spare the insults because they don’t change the truth….