Sorry, we no longer allow comments, but feel free to contact us here if you have a point of contention or some kind words you would like to share. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.
Re-posted material on this site often contains hyperlinks added to back up the claims made, which might not be endorsed by the original author.
These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:
"Your car has a poor choice of tires, no sensible person could call that thing a car with those tires"
"The colour is all wrong. No car of the type you describe is of that colour. You're not describing any car known to science."
"The engine in your car is not a known or standard type, your car therefore has no engine. It can't really be called a car."
"The windshield on this car doesn't exist, even though it might appear to exist, is solid, is see-through, and keeps the wind and rain out. A car without a windshield is not a car."
"Your car cannot possibly be found where you claim, even though there are pics, witness reports, scientific reviews etc. Because we deem it impossible, the car cannot exist. Everyone who says it does, no matter the evidence, is a wacko."
"Because of all these "proven" deficiencies you don't have a car at all. It's not a car."
"Furthermore, we have calculated (even tho the official investigators couldn't) what you may think is a fully functioning car is actually just a bicycle. Of course, being troofers, you will be unable to see or understand what we are pointing out to you. Just trust our brilliance and accept what we are saying."
Dear readers, if you can suppress common sense, the laws of physics, a multitude of credible eyewitness reports (many from trained observers), and the findings of independent researchers & scientists, then you can believe in anything.
If you can think for yourselves you will believe only what the established evidence tells you.
911 was an inside job. The evidence is clear cut. (AE911truth.org)
Sorry I've been away for a while everyone. My computer's been broken for about three weeks. But it's fixed now and I'm back to doing what I do best: Debunk the debunkers.
A few months back I sent my open letter to debunker Ryan Owens. Within a few weeks he responded back. Here's his full response with my comments added. Ryan has given me full permission to use this email in any way I want.
Well this thing surely turned out to be a lot longer than I had expected (nearly 8 pages), which is why it took so long to finally get back to you. Right off the bat, I'll admit that there were some things in the letter you were correct about, like information about WTC7 being based on early hypotheses which later turned out to be incorrect, which I plan to make a note of in the videos with one of the little bubble box things as soon as I figure out how to do that and get a chance to. But for about 95% of the things you said, it seemed to me like you were just repeating the same old 9/11 truther speaking points when they try to "debunk the debunkers". Given the fact that, as we will see, you did not respond to the full 100% of my letter, I don't see that as being a fair or accurate statement. I tried not to sound like too much of a dick in my responses, And you didn't . I have dealt with those sorts of people before. You are not one of them. but some of the things were just too ridiculous. Anyway, here's the letter. Feel free to use any quotes from it (or the whole thing) however you want. And I will.
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition not Possible
Claim 1: Concerning the puffs of air being ejected several floors below the pancaking floors, this is something I DO address IN the video. The floor slabs extended across the open office space areas, but there was a massive core in each tower which contained three stairwells, over a dozen elevator shafts, and numerous air shafts for ventilation throughout the building. This accounts for the puffs of air several stories below the actual pancaking floor slabs. Furthermore, actual controlled demolitions set of their explosives BEFORE the building begins to collapse (since, of course, it is the explosives that CAUSE the collapse). In fact, some of these ejections have been shown to occur before the collapse here and here. The fact that 100% of the puffs of air you refer to are seen only AFTER the collapse has clearly already started proves that the collapse caused the puffs, the puffs didn't cause the collapse. As I have shown, this is incorrect. Finally, remember that not a single one of the video cameras recorded the resulting tremendous explosion that would had been clearly audible if these puffs of air were indeed explosions. If the explosions were continuous and rapid, then distinct explosions would have been nearly impossible to hear. Only a percentage of the concrete per floor pulverized, with that percentage growing greater and greater the further into the collapse. Additionally, much of the dust was composed not only of pulverized concrete but also by the pulverized drywall. NIST's collapse theory is not contradicted by this, it merely demonstrates a misunderstanding among most 9/11 truthers of what NIST's collapse theory IS. A few things you did not address: 1) Calculations done by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers. And 2) David Chandler has shown that some of these ejections came from the steel corner columns, making it impossible that they were the result of air pressure.
Claim 2: There are no squibs "shooting" out of the north side of Building 7. This is the clearest video of what you refer to, so your readers can watch for themselves:
What I see are a series of windows breaking due to the stress as the outer shell of WTC7 begins to descend downward. The outward rush of air caused by the descending shell then pushes the intense smoke with had filled every floor at that point out through those broken windows. According to NIST, there were only fires mainly on the lower floors, not the upper ones. And according to the FEMA report: “Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was supposed to be filled with firestopping material.” Therefore, it seems unlikely that the smoke from the lower floors could have traveled up to the upper floors.
I see no flashes of light indicating an explosion, nor did any of the video cameras pick up any tremendously deafening explosions which would have been picked up if these were indeed explosions. Furthermore, whether you believe that these are breaking windows or "squibs", we can both agree that they occur near the TOP of the building (about 10 floors from the roof), whereas we can also agree that the building began collapsing from the BOTTOM. So what would possibly be the reason for setting off explosions near the roof when the collapse initiates from the base? Perhaps to weaken the building throughout, as is done in other demolitions. In this video, explosions can be seen going off at the upper sections even after the building has started to fall.
Claim 3: Where do I begin? With regards to the many videos in and around Ground Zero following the collapses in which random explosions are heard... well, duh, that's because stuff was exploding! The collapses damaged underground gas lines, setting off random explosions all throughout the day. Hundreds of vehicles were also set on fire, setting off random explosions. An explosion in the pile AFTER the collapses of the towers (or literally hours and hours before the collapse of WTC7) is not evidence of explosive charges placed inside the buildings. I have shown this to be wrong. Kevin McPadden, the only person claiming to have heard explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7, was a well-known 9/11 truther who gave speeches at rallies and never once made any mention of having heard explosions prior to the collapse of WTC7. He only "remembered" this detail and began making the claim in September 2007, a full 6 years after 9/11! He is also contradicted by the many firefighters who say that they never heard any explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7 as well as the many video cameras which were present and recording at the exact intersection where McPadden claims to have been standing, in which no explosions are heard. If you hear an explosion in the NBC video of WTC7's collapse, then you are making yourself hear something which is not there. I am not making myself hear anything. I can clearly here loud booms occurring right before the collapse. Even just a single explosion needed to sever even one column in WTC7would have created an audio level of about 140 dB at a distance of half a mile, equivalent to the audio level created by a jet engine. Here, you are using NIST'sstrawman argument, assuming that RDX, which produces those sound levels, was the only explosive that could have been used. There are other substances, such as incendiaries, that could have been used. It's worth pointing out that very few of the prominent controlled demolition advocates have ever suggested that RDX alone was used. Why you and NIST would rule out demolition based on this argument is puzzling. But the fact remains is that the "sounds" are not what defines an explosion. Also, remember that this would be only one explosion, whereas controlled demolitions traditionally use hundreds of explosives. The video of 1WTC's collapse, in which you claim explosions are heard, contains nothing of the sort. The constant "crashing" sound is the normal sound of the building collapsing. What should a collapsing 110 story skyscraper sound like? You are missing the point in that sounds consistent with demolition can be heard, something you and other debunkers have said did not occur. Should it not make any sound at all? Also, the roaring/crashing sound is heard only AFTER the building begins to collapse. If this were controlled demolition, you would hear sharp - BANG, BANG, BANG - sounds, following by the collapse of the building. If these were traditional demolitions, I would agree. But if these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, then they would obviously be modified. The video PROVES that there AREN'T any such explosions. No, it does not.
I note that here you completely ignored Claim 4, which is your video's assertion that explosives would have left behind remnants such as det cord. I clearly demonstrated that Brent Blanchard and yourself are incorrect about this assertion, and I still recommend you put a disclaimer in your video.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
Claim 1: Don't understand your reasoning. The upper section did tilt 23 degrees to the east, but the floor slabs of the floors below pancaked pretty much straight downward. The core of the South Tower had neither its north or west columns. If the top tilted to the east, we would expect at least the west columns to survive.
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist
I'm glad you don't believe Flight 77's pilot, Charles Burlingame, was in some way in on 9/11. I'm also aware that not every 9/11 truther has the exact same beliefs about 9/11 as every other 9/11 truther. In fact, I'm sure no two 9/11 truthers have the exact same beliefs. In my videos I don't say that all 9/11 truthers believe in the particular claim being debunked. I'm just saying, "Here is a theory, and now here's why it's false." I'm also well aware that not all 9/11 truthers believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, but I still have videos debunking this theory because there are plenty 9/11 truthers who DO believe this. And I happen to think those are some of your better videos. The theories about Burlingame somehow being involved in 9/11 were put forth by Loose Change 2nd Edition, which was reportedly the most viewed internet video at one point, so surely a lot of people knew of this theory even if not all of them believed it. It would still help if you added some sort of disclaimer to make clear that few truthers believe that theory.
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: Correct, the original WTC7 was 350 feet from the North Tower, not "less than 300 feet" as I said in the video. If I remember correctly, when I was making the video I used the distance bar on a satellite photo of Ground Zero post-9/11 via Google Maps, which it turns out is not the most accurate technique. At the time I also assumed the southern edge of the original WTC7 was perfectly flush with the edge of the Vesey Street sidewalk as the new WTC7 is, but it turns out that the original building was pushed back (northward) about 20-30 feet to allow for the loading docks. However, whether 300 feet or 350 feet, this is still nothing with compared to the vertical height of the North Tower (1368 feet). The horizontal distance between the buildings was only about 1/4th the height of the tower. Though to be fair, most of the large debris appeared to be heading towards building 7 when the North Tower was at about half its original height. For comparison, we know that debris from the North Tower fell as far away as to crush the eastern edge of the Winter Gardens, which is about 500 feet away. Yes, and why was this debris flung so far? Still, I will add a message in the video saying it should be 350 feet.
Claims 2, 3, and 4: I made and uploaded this video in September 2007, which was over a year before the official investigation had released its final report. Hence, everything in the video was based off of NIST's working hypothesis at that time. The investigation found that the diesel generators did not help to feed the fires and that it was the failure of Column 79, not Truss 1, which initiated the collapse. Also, the report does not say that the structural damage to the building played no role in the events leading to WTC7's collapse, it found that it played only a minor role. They did say, however, that the building would have collapsed even with no structural damage. However none of these three findings by the investigation changed the overall hypothesis for the collapse as presented in their early reports and in the video. Yes, the hypothesis of fire, which was the only hypothesis they seriously looked into. Still, I'll note either in the video or in the description that the video was made several years ago and based on the findings at the time.
9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained
Claim 1: I usually don't like to just tell people "Read the report", since most of them won't bother to, but this is such a complicated area that you really need to at least just read the section of the official report dealing with the temperature simulations and how they calculated the temperature of the fires. It was different on every floor. It was also different as time passed. Hydrocarbon fires can burn as hot as over 2000 degrees F, but NIST calculated that based on the available oxygen entering the building, the fires in the hottest parts of the building were generally burning at about 1832 degrees F. This was also backed up based on analysis of steel beams in WTC7 by FEMA that showed that they maximum temperature they had reached was 1832 degrees F. Interesting that you would bring this up. You are referring to the eutectic steel. You have such strong faith in NIST's calculations, and yet this steel actually contradicts NIST'sWTC7 report more than it supports NIST's report on the Towers. After all, nowhere in NIST'sWTC7 report do they claim that any of the steel in Building 7 was heated to 1800F. At most, they claim the steel in Building 7 was heated to about 1250F. So, the WTC7 steel may support the WTC collapse report, but it raises more problems for the Building 7 report. In any case, I cannot say how accurate NIST's calculations are until they release their modeling data for peer review. Of course, this beam was from WTC7 (not the Twin Towers), but the fires in the towers and WTC7 were very similar and fed by the same material, the same type of normal office contents. My key point is that the maximum temperatures for the fires would have been about 1832F. But I have seen no empirical evidence to support the assertion that the fires in the South Tower were that hot only minutes before its collapse. The page you linked to completely misrepresents NIST (or at the least, misleads the reader). The fires in the towers took place over 8 floors in 1WTC and 6 floors in 2WTC. That's 14 floors and literally hundreds of columns and hundreds of floor trusses. The hottest zones in the towers were at the floor trusses (IE, the ceilings, remember heat rises), not the core columns or perimeter columns. NIST was only able to analyze core and perimeter columns. They weren't able to test the floor trusses I THINK because they needed to actually test the paint and the floor trusses were not painted. In any case, details about the temperatures the columns reached tell us nothing about the temperatures the floor trusses reached. Regardless, any speculation that the trusses were heated far hotter than the core or perimeter columns is just that-- pure speculation backed by no empirical evidence.
Claim 2: This is grasping at straws when you consider than the color of any metal is going to vary with the lighting even if the temperature remains the same, True, but the picture I reference shows the south side more in shadow than the other sides, meaning that less natural light would have altered the color. and also there are dozens of videos showing the molten metal, and at many angles the molten metal is even a much darker orange. Also true, but the fact remains that the metal clearly did attain this high temperature at some point. Molten aluminum should not remain that bright for very long.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: See above.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition
Claim 1: Not always but generally. The reason no flashes are seen in that video is because the demolition team wrapped heavy protection around the blast zones to prevent the explosives from sending debris flying. Regardless, flashes can obviously be prevented in a controlled demolition, based on how the explosives are set up or what type of explosives are used. You should still add a disclaimer that bright flashes do not have to occur for it to be a demolition. Flashes in the South Tower's collapse have been found. You ignore the deafening explosions in that video. No, I don't. As I've shown, explosions are present in videos of the Tower collapses.
Claim 2-4: See above.
Claim 5: Wrong, it leans exactly as it starts to collapse. No, it doesn't. Also, something I don't even see you truthers talk about is why you think the buildings leaned AT ALL. The fires in the South Tower at the moment of collapse were on the east side of the building, and the building leaned to the east when it started to collapse. A controlled demolition would have caused a straight down symetrical collapse, with nothing to cause such a sharp lean. So by your standards, this must not be a controlled demolition. Even if for some unfathomable reason it would have caused a lean, the odds of it just "coincidentally" leaning in the exact direction where the fires were is 1 in 4. But wait, the exact same thing happened in the North Tower. The fires at the time of collapse were on the south side of the building, and the building leans to the south as it collapses. The odds of this happening by coincidence: 1 in 4. The odds of it happening in both towers in 1 in 4 multiplied by 1 in 4, or 1 in 16. Unless they were engineered to do that, much like how the demolitions would had to have started near where the planes impacted the buildings.
Claim 5: The antenna falls at exactly the same time as the rest of the building, even in that video. Again, the antenna does rotate south at one point, but the initial motion was entirely vertical and happened before the main collapse. Also, the fact that huge sections (as much as 70 stories tall) NIST says 60 stories for WTC1 and 40 for WTC2. of the North Tower's core remained standing for about 20 seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed proves that the core did not fall first. This assertion relies on the idea that the core would start to fail at the bottom like a conventional demolition. However, the demolition clearly had to start at the top, meaning that only the upper part of the core had to fail for the antenna to fail first.
Claim 6: See above.
Claim 7: Agreed 100%. But the claim that the buildings fell at or near free-fall acceleration is one of the KEYSTONE claims of the 9/11 truth movement, it's even 1 of the top 10 claims of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Many argue that explosives were placed on every column on every floor, which caused a free-fall collapse. Of course, this is completely ridiculous and even if you wanted to take a building down in a controlled demolition, you wouldn't need to put explosives on every single column and on every floor. So, their ideas about how controlled demolitions work is laughable in the first place, but the point of my video is to prove that they didn't fall at free-fall anyway. That's fine, but my main point was that you explicetly state in your video that explosives "would have caused the buildings to collapse at free fall speed." I showed this to be most likely incorrect. Basically, you should think about rephrasing that particular comment.
Claim 8: Again, the claim that the buildings fell into their own footprints is one of THE LEADING claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The point of my video was to prove that none of the buildings fell even remotely into their own footprints. That may apply to the Towers, but to claim that Building 7 did not "even fall remotely into" its footprint is stretching the truth, don't you think? Panels from the North Tower radiated outwards as far as 600 feet outside the building's footprint. Yes, and why were they flung that far? 30 W. Broadway, which was entirely across the street from WTC7, was so badly damaged by debris from WTC7 that it had to be demolished. "Entirely across the street" makes it sound like it was blocks away. As I said before, the fact that Building 7 damaged other buildings was probably due to the fact that it was a very large building. A building the size of WTC7 would never have been legally demolished with explosives with neighboring buildings that close, hence why they are demolishing the Deutsche Bank Building beam by beam. Only within the past couple months did they start constructing the new 30 W. Broadway.
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
The video was made in December 2007 (and was actually just an updated version of the one I'd made about 6 months prior), which was based on a 204 page/slide PowerPoint presentation that Steven Jones had been giving, when he was still claiming it was thermate. In that presentation he wasn't talking about microspheres or red chips at all, it was all about thermate and chemicals found in the dust. This is simply wrong. Dr. Jones has, to the best of my knowledge, always talked about the iron spheres when discussing his thermite hypotheses. He certainly was discussing them at the Rebuilding America's Senses event, a clip of which you show at the beginning of your video. In his slide presentations, he discusses the spheres in great detail.
It was only later that he changed his version of the truth (for the third time) and started talking about nanothermite and microspheres (which, by the way, form completely naturally in ordinary office fires and the EPA had already released a lengthy report explaining the microspheres in December 2003, literally years and years before Jones had ever even heard of them). The EPA actually discussed using the spheres as one of the signature components to distinguish WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust). By that time I felt no need to keep making videos debunking every new version of the truth that Steven Jones came up with. First, it was thermite (which I debunked). Then, "No no, it was thermate!" (which I debunked). Then, "No no, it was nanothermite!" Even more recently, he seems to have changed his story yet AGAIN and now claims that it was traditional explosives all along, and if nanothermite was involved at all then it was just to be used as a detonator to set off the explosives (which, by the way, it a completely ridiculous theory since there are already detonators for explosives which work perfectly well and reliably and there would be no need to invent "nanothermite detonators"... but, that's Steven Jones for ya). This sort of nonsensical criticism has already been thoroughlyaddressed. None of this changes the fact that the current information in your video is incorrect. Your claims about thermate have long been debunked, and I highly recommend that you either add disclaimers to your video or remove it entirely. I also recommend you look at this, regarding your criticism of the nanothermite discovery.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
Claim 1: Ugh, sorry to be blunt but please tell me you're joking. You're basically saying that the reason the molten metal was still molten 6 weeks later is because the thermite/thermate continued to burn for 6 weeks. No. What I claim, or rather, what the peer reviewed scientific article claims, is that there was an abundance of odd chemicals and chemical reactions occuring at Ground Zero which lasted for weeks because the chemicals were largely present and continued to reacte. This is outlined in this video at minute 6:52. In one of my videos I show that the amount of molten metal flowing from the South Tower in the final 7 minutes before its collapse can be estimated at about 30 tons, which would require 60 tons of thermite, which is equivalent to about 10 full dump truck loads of thermite. The idea of sneaking that much thermite onto one office floor with no one noticing is so absurd that anyone seriously entertaining the idea that the molten material flowing from the South Tower is molten iron from thermite should have their sanity card revoked. Right. Because it sounds tricky to do, we can just throw out the theory entirely. Gotcha. But wait, this is only one building. You say molten steel was found below all three buildings. For both towers and WTC7, it would require, say, 180 tons or 30 full dump trucks of thermite! And this is 180 tons of thermite for a 7 minute burn. Now if you want to go so far as to say that the burn lasted not for 7 minutes but for 6 WEEKS... then this calculates out to not 180 tons of thermite but 1,555,200 tons of thermite! Equivalent to about 259,200 full dump truck loads of thermite! I defy you to sneak even ONE dump truck load of thermite into the World Trade Center (or any other office building). Again, I recommend that you actually read the enviromental anomalies paper.
Claim 2: Oxidize does NOT mean vaporize! Oxidation of lead will start at normal room temperatures. Yes, but it has to boil before it oxidizes. And lead does not boil until temperatures of 3180F. And RJ Lee made it clear in their 2003 report that they talked about temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Study, 2003, page 5) And temperatures high enough to melt steel or iron were recorded in the debris.
Claim 3: See above.
Claim 4: Glowing does not mean molten. Yes, but if a metal such as copper or aluminum were glowing that bright it would be completely liquid. Anyway there's no question there was molten metal in the debris pile (aluminum, lead, and copper were all abundant in the debris pile and all have melting points at or below the range of fires known to exist in the pile). But as I already pointed out, because the molten metal remained glowing for as long as it did, it indicates it was a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and high heat capacity, which is not the characteristic of any of the metals you mentioned. Even if the flakes falling from the glowing beam were molten (meaning, liquid) as opposed to glowing embers, that doesn't automatically indicate that it was molten steel. It does if the other metals are ruled out.
Claim 5: As stated above, copper and lead were also present through the complex (used in pipes and wiring and other electrical devices). But they do not have the heat conductivity/capacity characteristcs I mentioned.
9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim
Claim 1: It is from the FEMA report and I'll point out in the video NIST's estimation.
Claim 2: See above.
Claim 3: When I show examples of those steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire, I didn't claim they were skyscrapers! I even say that the Kader Toy Factory collapses were all 4-story buildings, and I certainly don't imply that the Dogwood Elementary School was a skyscraper. I never stated that you claimed they were skyscrapers. I simply pointed out that you compare them to the Towers, which is obviously misleading. How would the partial collapse of the Windsor Building possibly support your side? The link I provided should have clarified that. The building was designed differently than the WTC in that it had a concrete core from the bottom of the building all the way to the roof and concrete floor columns up to around the 21st floor. Only the top 11 floors had a steel-frame, and that was only the FLOORS (meaning the office space, not including the core which was concrete). All 11 of these steel-framed floors collapsed to the ground from fire. The only part of the building that didn't collapse was the concrete core and the bottom 21 concrete floors. Fire affects steel differently than concrete. 100% of the Windsor Building which had a steel-frame design collapsed. 100% of the World Trade Center had a steel-frame. You laughably attack us debunkers for not comparing the World Trade Center to other fires in skyscrapers which did not collapse. Maybe the reason we don't compare the WTC to these other skyscraper fires is as simple as this: Of every single other skyscraper fire (you know, the ones you truthers love to talk about), not a single one of them had a hijacked 767 crash into them. True, but the fires are blamed more for the collapses than the damage. Nearly all of them were also made of concrete and not a steel-frame like the WTC. Wrong. The One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate Bank were in fact tube-within-tube steel-framed designs like the Towers were, although not quite the same. Even WTC7, although not hit by a plane, was completely different than these other fires in that it had a steel-frame, it was designed completely differently than these other buildings, it no sprinklers working to suppress the fires, and it was abandoned by the FDNY and allowed to burn unchecked for 7 hours (whereas most other high-rise fires had firefighters in the building fighting the fires). If you would bother to read what NIST said about the fires in WTC7 (yes, I have read much of the WTC7 report), then you would see that NIST claims that “[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.” Ultimately, NIST says the fires in other steel-framed buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC7. They claim the crucial differences had to do with differences in design, but this has already been found to be problematic as well. We don't compare the WTC to these other buildings because they are nothing alike, and you shouldn't either. So you apparently think it's okay to compare the Towers to elementary schools and badly built toy factories? Just because they collapsed from fire? Sorry, but until I see an example of a steel framed skyscraper totally collapsing from fire, I think I have good reason to compare the WTC skyscrapers with other skyscrapers. Lastly, I would just like to point out that even if an event is the first time in history that it's happened, that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to ever happen. In 1912, for the first time in history a luxury liner sank after hitting an iceberg. In 1937, for the first time in history a passenger airship burst into flames while in the air. In 1969, for the first time in history man walked on the moon. In 2003, for the first time in history a Space Shuttle exploded on reentry into the atmosphere due to damage to its heat shield. In 2008, for the first time in history the United States elected its first African-American president. Just because something happens "for the first time in history", that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen. True, but one must look at the bigger picture in these matters. Say, for example, three Titanic-like ships, all designed to cope well in extreme situations, all sank after all three had hit icebergs within hours of each other. Three ships all sinking for the same reason within a few hours. If that had happened in 1912, I'm sure most people would find that incredibly suspicious and very well could have caused people to cry "conspiracy."
9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact
Claim 1: Leslie Robertson passionately rejects this claim by the Port Authority. Even if it were true, which it may well be, the towers on 9/11 DID survive the plane impacts. The stripping of the fireproofing and the long-term fires were another matter entirely. Oh and you conveniently left off that part from the NIST report which expresses doubt over which of the speeds was considered. I am fully aware of NIST's doubt, but I have yet to see any pre-9/11 documentation showing that the speeds considered were really 180mph. But I have seen plenty of pre-9/11 material saying otherwise.
Claim 3: Again, the towers did remain standing after the planes hit. Still, your argument is obviously misleading.
Claim 4: When you truthers quote John Skilling, you always leave off the most important part of his quote: "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much." He was still considering it being an accident, not a plane being deliberately crashed into the building at full speed with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. But, he clearly stated that he fires were taken into account. Also, your claim about Robertson being the cheif engineer is still wrong. Skilling was clearly the head engineer.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Small or Oxygen-Starved Fires
Claim 1: I don't know if this is 9/11 truthers' attempt at a straw-man argument or just a complete misunderstanding of what the official explanation for what the collapse is, but the NIST report says that the jet fuel burned off within the first 10 minutes and had, essentially, nothing to do with the fires in the buildings. The jet fuel acted like a match: It started the fires, but then the jet fuel itself burned off almost immediately, leaving normal office fires to burn, much like a match lighting a fireplace. The jet fuel was gone in 10 minutes, yet the fires in 1WTC burned for 102 minutes! 7WTC did not have one drop of jet fuel in it at any point, and yet it burned out of control for nearly 7 hours. What I pointed out, however, is that your citation of NIST saying that 70% of the fuel remained in the Towers is wrong, and that they clarify this much more accurately in NCSTAR 1-5F. They even go as far as saying that half the fuel in the buildings did not even stay within the imapct points and that it flowed away from were the planes hit. So you should clearly rethink your statements about how much fuel was in the Towers, as they obviously played a role in how the fires were spread throughout the buildings. 9/11 truthers very commonly assume that the fires were fed entirely (or mostly) by jet fuel, when in fact the official report makes it clear that the jet fuel had very little to do with anything. And in the case of WTC7, it had nothing to do with anything. I never claim jet fuel was the only source of fuel for the fires. What I claim is that you are cleary wrong about how much fuel was in the Towers.
Claim 2: This claim is better addressed by NYPD videographer Steve Spak who, in the documentary "The Truth Behind the Third Tower", responding to Richard Gage's claim that the smoke pouring out of WTC7 was actually being drawn over to WTC7's south side from WTC6, says that that's absurd and that he was there on the scene that day and that the smoke was clearly coming FROM WTC7. It then cuts to a video clearly showing the smoke coming out of WTC7, not being drawn TO WTC7 and then rising up its side. I'm sorry, but pictures and videos show that clearly the same thing happened to WTC1 (minute 11:43).
So I've just taken a look over at ae911truth.info to see if Mr. Joseph Nobles has been up to anything recently. His latest addition to his site concerns a post by someone on the JREF forum on a thread titled "Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?". I was ready to write a quick response to this, but looking through the thread I quickly saw that someone had already responded to it. Poster "Sivan Kurzberg" posted this excellent response, which I've reposted here with some of my own comments in red, some links:
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures. Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though. Absolutely. And NIST hasnot done this.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred. This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated? What's more, fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours.Other skyscrapershave burned over 5 hours and have not collapsed.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire. See number 2
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others. Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure? It may, but we haveno examplesof this outside of controlled demolition.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist. Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11. The only real progressive collapse caused by firewas everything one would expect: localized, asymmetric, and nowhere near free fall rate.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire. It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem. I couldn't agree more.
Sivan Kurzberg also mentioned something that debunkers have yet to do:
"What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire high-rise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour."
Looking through the thread more, I was surprised to see that poster "Patriots4Truth" posted several of my videos from my "9/11 Un-debunked" series in response to debunker claims. Poster "Grizzly Bear" had some thoughts on my videos. Once again, I've reposted that here with my comments in red with some links:
A quick comment while I'm on break...
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance. I do not assume that jet fuel was the only source of fuel, and I never will. The point of my video was to show that the amount of fuel in each of the Towers was smaller than debunkers had portrayed in the past. This is supposed to be a crucial difference between the fires in the Towers and other skyscraper fires. Clearly jet fuel would have created higher temperatures than office material.
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes Quote: When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal construction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.
Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed. This is pointless rambling. I only cited the Commission Report to make clear that the official investigators were the first to make claims of "10 seconds."The speed issue is very important, and it has been shown the the fall rates of the Towers were at the very leastconsistent with controlled demolition.
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses "First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant. Exactly how is my video irrelevant? Debunkers find itunacceptableto compare other high-rise skyscraper fires to the Towers and Building 7, but comparing them tobadly built toy factories and elementary schoolsis just fine. The only steel structures debunkers apparently do think are comparable are structures that have collapsed from fire, with none of them being steel skyscrapers.
Throughout the thread some JREFers brought up Building 5's partial collapse from fire, which they seem to think supports the "fire can cause collapse" theory. Here's the reality.
WTC Collapse This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it. None of which had any reasonable argument made against them.
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning. Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire. However, as I've already shown, Building 5 was almost fully engulfed and performed much better.
He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5... Which is what I do claim. He completely ignores the photoswhich show the exact same thing happened to WTC1.
Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree. It is relevant because debunkers still cry claims of"25% scooped out!"or"there were fuel tanks in the building!"As long as debunkers keep making these claims, I see it as very relevant.
patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argument instead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thank you. These arguments clearly are groundless, andJREFers themselveshave been shown to be nothing but psuedoskeptics.
Hopefully, this will put what the Truth Movement believes in better perspective for the debunkers.
LIHOP and MIHOP only refer to the US government's involvement - either the US let it happen on purpose or they made it happen on purpose. Out of those two choices I would actually say that LIHOP is more likely to be the correct answer, because MIHOP implies that it was entirely a US conspiracy and Al-Qaeda etc. had nothing to do with it.
I think it's more likely that Al-Qaeda was involved, I just don't believe they were the masterminds. As Jason Bermas demonstrates in his film Fabled Enemies, 9/11 was most likely an international intelligence operation - involving the CIA, the FBI, MOSSAD, ISI, Saudi Intelligence, British Intelligence etc. and probably Al-Qaeda. The people pulling the strings of these groups were the ones who made it happen on purpose.
I personally don't believe that anyone in the Bush administration was involved in the masterminding of the attacks, a lot of people try and give definite answers like "Bush did it!" or "Cheney did it!" etc. But as far as I'm concerned, those guys were nothing more than puppets acting on orders. And their orders could have simply been "Let it happen!". I mean it's possible that Bush and Cheney don't even know that the towers were demolished.
So I've just finished watching a repeat of the History Channel's documentary "The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?" And I basically felt the same thing I usually feel when I watch this particular piece: disgust. This documentary has always had a special significance with me, because it was this very piece that got me interested into researching 9/11. And to this day I still believe it is the most biased and slimy propaganda piece ever put out attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement. I find it both funny and sad that they actually aired this piece again. Funny because many of the debunking attempts in the piece have themselves long been debunked (particularly the section on Building 7, where almost every argument they brought up has been discredited by NIST itself; damage, fuel tanks, etc.) And sad because I know that the average person will watch this piece and probably think the Truth Movement is made up of some of the worst people in the world. Here is a not widely seen episode of the INN World Report that took on the History Channel's lies, exposing some of their dirty propaganda tricks and allowing some of those interviewed the chance to talk about several issues that were not addressed in the piece.
Hopefully the American people will learn to see through these kinds of dishonest attacks and smear campaigns and learn what the real truth is.
Pat Curley has recently posted another piece of thermite denial ... on April Fools day fittingly enough. It's the usual debunker drivel about chain of custody, which I keep pointing out is irrelevant in this case due to the nature of the material that we're dealing with. It's not something that's commonly found in the world and it's not something that anyone in the truth movement can manufacture. Ridiculous conspiracy theories aside, Pat also cites the work of a French researcher to cast doubt on the fact that the red material is nanothermite.
So the French researcher with limited equipment found a few guns but can't prove they still work, so that disproves the existence of those that definitely do, does it? I'll leave this one to Victoria Ashley, from the same discussion Pat quoted:
"What [finding the nanothermite] is equivalent to is saying "here's the gun". A highly engineered thermiticnanocomposite should not ever have been in the WTC. So in effect, what you are saying is that if other independent labs cannot prove that that gun can FIRE, then the crime cannot be shown to have been committed that way.
If engineered thermiticnanocomposites were all around in our environment, that would be a different story. It would be as if guns were growing like weeds everywhere and so there was nothing unusual about happening to find one at a crime scene"
No one has refuted the simple fact that this stuff is clearly unusual, something that's obvious just by looking at the basic structure. Therefore, no one has disproven the fact that these are guns. Just because some of them don't work very well after nine years, doesn't change the fact that they are still guns. And we know some of the guns definitely do still work, we have videos of them going off!
Debunkers, man-made global warming advocates and skeptics in general like to call their opponents "deniers". This word has of course been deliberately chosen because of its holocaust connotations. It's interesting though because in many ways it is they who are the deniers. In May of 2009, I coined the term "thermite denier" as an alternative name for 9/11 debunkers. And considering how blatantly obvious it is that high-tech thermite played a role in the destruction of the World Trade Center, and how deeply deluded you would have to be not to see it, I think the name is more than justified.
The most common debunker response is the claim that the red material is simply primer paint. Such criticism is completely ignorant of simple facts about the material. There are a few basic reasons why the chips are unlikely to be paint. For one thing, they do not contain Zinc in any significant amount. They also do not dissolve in paint solvent and do not soften when heated. When a 1mm x 1mm chip was heated using an oxy-acetylene torch (see first video below), it flashed brightly and ejected a hot particle. Various paint samples were also heated using the torch and they simply turned to ash.
There are also a number of much more conclusive reasons why the material cannot be anything other than a high-tech explosive...
1. The particles are on the nanoscale. The bright particles below are consistently 100 nanometers in size and are seen intermixed with plate-like particles 40 nanometers thick.
2. They're intimately mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components.
3. When heated to around 400-450°C, the chips ignite and undergo an energetic chemical reaction.
4. Upon ignition, molten iron spheres form on the surface. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, the trigger temperature of around 400-450°C could not possibly melt the iron. The fact that we see these spheres implies a temperature increase of more than 1000°C during the reaction.
5. The material is potentially more explosive than TNT and RDX.
Below are two videos of chip ignitions ...
Another common criticism relates to the chain of custody of the samples. Debunkers try to cast doubt on Jones' findings by pointing out that his samples weren't professionally handled or hermetically sealed, as they would be in a real forensic investigation. While this is true, it's not as if the government has done any better. We're doing what the government should have done. We shouldn't even have to be doing this. You can criticise Jones' methods all you want but it's still better than anything the government has done.
There were four samples used in the study, one of which was collected minutes after the second tower collapsed, before any cleanup work began. This sample contained red chips and iron microspheres in it just like the others, destroying a tired old debunker claim that the samples could have been contaminated by cleanup work.
Also when one understands just how advanced this thermitic material is, the idea that it could have been added to the samples is ludicrous. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan can't even make this stuff! There are only a handful of military labs in the world that can make nano-aluminium, one of the key ingredients of the material. And because of the way the particles are intimately mixed, the nanothermite could not have been made by simply crushing ordinary thermite into extremely fine particles - a top-down approach. The nanothermite, like all nanotechnology, is manufactured using a bottom-up approach - building it up molecule by molecule in the same way skyscrapers are built up beam by beam. So again, we're talking about a very sophisticated manufacturing process. There's no way this could have been made by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement and added to the samples.
The mental gymnastics that debunkers go through would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. In order to convince themselves that there is no conspiracy surrounding 9/11, they come up with an entirely baseless and even more ludicrous conspiracy theory of their own. They effectively accuse ordinary citizens and scientists of fabricating evidence, even though those citizens and scientists have nothing to gain from doing so and physically couldn't even if they wanted to, yet they find the idea of a corrupt government fabricating evidence ridiculous! I think it's they who need the tin foil hats to be honest!
Another point I have heard raised is the fact that Jones only has four samples - peanuts compared to the total amount of dust produced. Interestingly though, that fact actually supports our side if you think about it. When you consider the enormous amount of dust produced in total, if there was only a small amount of this stuff in the towers, the probability of it appearing in Jones' relatively tiny samples would be equivalent to the probability of taking a small sample of hay from a haystack the size of a city and finding one of the few needles hidden in the giant haystack in that small sample. The fact that we find this thermitic material in not just one of the samples, but in all four, suggests this stuff was everywhere.
Regardless of how it was done or who was responsible, just by looking at the hard scientific facts it is obvious to anyone not living in denial what happened to the twin towers on 9/11. They did not collapse due to damage and fire as we have been led to believe, but were in fact demolished using a high-tech explosive. A common response at this point is to try and cast doubt on the demolition theory by asking questions like 'How exactly was this thermite used?', 'How did they get it in the buildings without being seen?', 'How did they stop it from going off when the planes hit?' and 'If the buildings were demolished, where were the bright flashes and loud bangs?'. These are all very good questions that we all would like to know the answer to. But the fact that we don't know exactly how the towers were blown up, doesn't negate the evidence that they were blown up! A criminal investigation will answer those questions. Denying the evidence on the basis of personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, something skeptics are supposed to avoid.
One thing's for sure though, Al-Qaeda didn't blow the towers up!
Youtuber jawsfreak97 has, once again, made another video trying to debunk the WTC squibs.
He posted this as a response to my squib video (and it looks like he may have used some footage from my video as well). On his channel, he's posted the following statement: "Im going to debunk every 9/11 myth out there" And he apparently wants to keep that promise. He doesn't seem to care what I think, so I'll let an actual scientist take it from here.
"to all you 9/11 debunkers, i have only one question. Why is it that no one will rise to the defense of the government's story to debate charlie sheen live on TV. rush limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Cindy mccain, all refused to engage in a live debate, Why?? Is it because they know they dont have any hope of debating someone, or are they cowards, I hope one of you debunkers can explain this one too me. If 9/11 are truthers are so stoupid, why not send the debate to the grave?"
I along with many other people would gladly debate anybody who believes 9/11 was a 'controlled demolition' or that their was 'no plane at the pentagon.' Charlie Sheen doesn't scare anybody, unless you're measuring his lack of intelligence on the matter. It would just be an annoyance, kind of like trying to debate psycology with Tom Cruse, or Rosie Odonnell about structural engineering.
Please fire away!
I informed fengineer08 that I would debate them through email and post it on this blog if they could remain civil, they accepted. I failed to tell them that the issue being brought up about Sheen is not that nobody will debate him, it's that his prominent detractors won't, but I digress.
Before beginning the debate I let them know that there would be no need to debate the Pentagon issue seeing as how I agree with their statement in that regard. To this they jokingly replied,"ahh ok then, I see you are not hard core crazy, this is good." But joking aside, this again demonstrates that the Pentagon no-jetliner theory works against us. Anyway, here is the debate...
The claim that bombs brought down the Twin Towers + Building 7 is something I do not believe for many reasons.
First off, the scale of actually rigging the nessicary ammount of explosives needed to bring down two of the largest buildings on earth and another 50 story building all within close proximity of each other is not possible.
I have never been part of a professional demolition team before, but I've witnessed them, and I've witnessed the kind of prep work that goes into taking down a structure (much smaller than the twin towers and building 7).
You need to access a building's core structure on almost every floor. This intails; -Tearing walls down. -Hammering away at concrete barriers and concrete surrounding columns. -Pre-cutting each and every structural column with a cutting torch.
Their is no way that out of the thousands of people who set foot in each of those buildings daily, that this activity would have not been noticed.
Next, you have to rig the buildings with explosives. I am not the right person to talk to as far as the exact quanity you would need to pull off a job like this, but I do know it would be several thousand tons at the very least, and again, how would this not be noticed?
I witnessed a 6 story building (approximately 240,000 square feet) get professionally demolished with an actual controlled demolition from a half mile away. Just the noise from the demolition waves was painful. We had a decibel meter set up and we hit 120-130 db, from a half mile away.
If bombs were used at the WTC, why couldn't you hear or see them? Their were probably a hundred cameras pointed at ground zero after the planes had crashed into the towers, yet not a single one picked up the noise that would have certianly been there if bombs were set off in those buildings.
Another reason I do not believe this theory is because conspiracy theorists completely dismiss the idea that flying a commerical airliner into a building can cause structural failure. And their is also no hard evidence that bombs were used, it's pure speculation.
In regard to the first couple of points that you have raised, I am going to defer to already published resources from myself and 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman. This will allow me to focus my retort on the most pertinent issue you raised: that there is "no hard evidence that bombs were used." Please do give these initial resources, and all of the information I make reference to, a good look.
In regard to the "the scale of actually rigging the nessicary ammount of explosives," and "how this"would not be noticed.":
But most importantly they admitted that the building experienced a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." Previous to this admission in their final Nov '08 report, their Aug '08 draft report attempted to demonstrate that "there was no freefall."
When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by high school physics teacher David Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. I submit to you this is why NIST failed to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.
Appendix C states,"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
In fact the iron-rich spheres are themselves hard evidence of the use of thermate which produces such spheres as a by-product. Thermate also produces molten iron as a by-product, and lo and behold molten metal was found under WTC 7 as well as the Towers and seen flowing from the South Tower's crash zone. NIST tried to deny the existence of the molten metal underneath the buildings and explain away the flowing metal in the South Tower as molten aluminum. Here is a video I made demonstrating that these claims are beyond dubious.
But just because the chemical elements are there does not mean they would be there in the correct proportions. As mechanical engineer Gordon Ross stated, "If I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble."
Furthermore, physicist Steven Jones has pointed out that, "Wallboard has calcium and sulfur and they're very tightly bound with oxygen as well as calcium sulfate."
So not only did the official investigators fail to do the proper forensic tests, but they also failed to independently verify the non-forensic tests that they did do.
I have read some of the response, not finished yet, but I will say one thing so far.
Most of your "sources" come from pro-conspiracy web pages, they are not neutral.
Second, they say over and over again that "WTC 7 fell near free fall speed." Not once do any of the articles discuss the collapse of the building's east penthouse which occured about 8 secounds before the full structure collapsed. The entire penthouse collapsed into the shell of the building, clearly indicating a progressive structural collapse. Why wasn't this addressed?
And about Richard Gage's explination as to why these "tremendous sounds" of explosives were not captured on a single video camera was because "they" edited the sounds out. I mean, really?? Come on man, you know that is bogus.
And last, they seem to contradict themselves an awful lot, especially regarding the Twin Towers.
They say that the only reason they produced so much dust during the collapse can only be from explosives. That's right, "can only be" from explosives.
When are these people actually going to take into account the massive level of energy that the upper floors generated when they slammed into the lower floors? They also didn't claim that the Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, atleast they realized they were wrong about something.
But in all seriousness, so far they do not rule out any other explanations (which are all very logical by the way) for what they bring up. They just push their ideas, and I'm sorry but that is not how you "investigate" anything.
I'm far from done reading it though, it is lengthy, I'll let you know when I get a chance to finish it.
I emailed "fengineer08" back twice after this partial response, once asking if I should wait until they gathered all of their thoughts before responding, and once asking if a further response was still coming. I have yet to hear back from them. So, until then, if there is a then, here is my response.
Regarding most of my sources being "pro-conspiracy," I agree. We are after all having a debate concerning whether there is evidence that points towards a government conspiracy or not. That being said, throughout my post I present the counter arguments to the information I am presenting, there are many links to the official reports and "debunking" sources so that the reader has everything they need at hand to compare and contrast. Furthermore, physics isn't biased, and our side of the debate has followed the scientifically accepted form of debate: peer-reviewed science. So when you state that we haven't ruled out any other explanations, I am astounded.
Regarding the objections to the freefall of WTC 7 argument, I suggest this blog:
And I suggest taking a look at this video which features a non-disputed progressive collapse, which is not only partial and non- symmetrical, but also takes 10 seconds for 13 stories to collapse.
If you look at the blog I posted regarding Richard Gage and the lack of explosive sounds, in it's totality, you will see that I wasn't agreeing with him.
I believe the vast volumes of dust produced on 9/11 are a good piece of supporting evidence, and suggest this page:
I meant to mention the supporting evidence in regard to the Twin Towers, as I did with Building 7, but since you claimed there was no hard evidence I wanted to focus on what I believe is the rock solid material. One of the points raised in the link above is that the Twin Towers also fell at near the rate of free fall, the difference in regard to WTC 7 is that NIST admitted it as well as admitting that it was impossible!
As far as the upper floors slamming into the lower floors as an explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers, I suggest these resources:
Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts 
These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:
