Click to Read!

2015 Edition

Click Here to Read




The page has been moved to here:

(Intro to "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against) 


There are a few things we need to point out regarding the alleged "fire initiated collapse" of (3) steel framed buildings on 9/11.


First we need to make clear there were in fact THREE buildings that collapsed. Many people are only aware of the two towers. The likely reason for this is the third building, WTC 7, has been completely ignored by the media.


Second we need to establish that nothing short of controlled demolition has ever brought down a steel framed building in the manner we witnessed on 9/11. Never, not once, not even close. This of course includes fire, earthquakes, wind, poor construction, etc.


Last but not least, we need to address the fact the government's theory regarding what caused the buildings to collapse is just that: a theory. By no stretch of the imagination has the theory ever been proven and, given the ever growing body of evidence against it, one could more accurately argue the government's theory has been thoroughly demolished. (No pun intended.)


The Third Building; WTC 7 (World Trade Center Building #7)


The collapse of WTC 7 was spectacular. -Some would argue the catastrophic failure of this 47 story steel framed building was even MORE spectacular than the collapse of the two towers. The reason for making this claim is, unlike the two towers, WTC 7 was not struck by any planes or burned with any jet fuel. -and yet, in a "spectacular" fashion, it suddenly vaporized into its own footprint for no apparent reason. Here are a couple excellent videos of the collapse: Video 1    Video 2  UPDATE, new video added in 2009: Video 3


When it comes to proving the government's "raging inferno of jet fuel" theory is critically flawed, WTC 7 represents one of the most compelling pieces of evidence available. -and yet our "free press" (which is supposed to help protect our society from the tyranny of secretive, inept, and dishonest government) has acted like the collapse of WTC 7 never happened. Rather than provide the 24 / 7 coverage this smoking gun deserves, we've instead been treated to 24 / 7 silence.


Without getting too far into the issue of "media complicity" in the cover up surrounding 9/11, suffice to say our multi-billion dollar corporate media is a "for profit" operation. There is no incentive to address any topic that could potentially destabilize the system it relies on; a system that provides (or can take away) favorable regulatory considerations, vital inside sources of information, and lucrative government contracts (just to name a few.)


Is there more to the media blackout? -Maybe; but there doesn't need to be. Good old fashioned profit motive and self-preservation are enough to stop the most important stories dead in their tracks. Both of these act as "filters" that sift every piece of information before it reaches our senses. -The corporate media might skewer a lone government criminal here and there, thats for sure; but whether it would ever truly expose the criminal system on which it depends is another issue all together. The fact is, neither the media nor the government can be trusted to tell us what we really need to know.


Case in point, the independent commission which was established to provide "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11" dealt with the complicated WTC 7 issue by not dealing with it at all.


Yes, that is correct. You could have read the entire 568 page 9/11 commission report and not learned anything about the inexplicable collapse of a 47 story office tower. -As if there was no real need to bring up something so ordinary and uneventful. Those who expected answers that would provide the "fullest possible account" got nothing instead.


But here again, with the same filters in place, what do we expect? Please forgive me for repeating myself: "-skewering a lone government criminal here and there is one thing, addressing anything that could potentially expose the criminal system (a system everyone in Washington profits from and depends on) is another issue all together."


To be fair, consider the underlying politics. Imagine if you worked decades to secure a high position at the most powerful company in the world, and the "leader" of that company selected you to get to the bottom of a problem. Would you, after careful consideration, go to your superior and say: "Well sir, based on the evidence, it looks like you're the problem - worse, there is reasonable cause to believe you and others under your command might be guilty of crimes punishable by death."


-The term "career suicide" comes to mind (if not literal suicide by way of some unfortunate accident.)


How many of us would risk our life's work to do something guaranteed to draw deadly serious attacks from the highest levels of power, but offered no guarantee of rewards in return? (Consider this question seriously-how many of us would risk our reputation, our career, our current income, our future income-or worse?) Granted, some people would, but the way around that little problem is to make sure that kind of person isn't selected for the job.  -Independent investigations don't mean much when the prime suspects get to choose the people setting the parameters of the investigation. On that point, it was said of Phillip D. Zelikow (the 911 Commission's executive director:)  


"Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation."


How can we truly expect an investigation to yield the "truth" (let alone justice) when one hand-picked person can steer attention away from the most incriminating evidence? How can we uncover criminal negligence (or worse) when everything that points in that direction is excluded and deemed irrelevant?


Perhaps The Commission wasn't meant to provide the "fullest possible account" after all. It seems more likely it was intended to prop up the official conspiracy theory. It seems information that undermined the official account was only collected so it could be more effectively suppressed, countered and whitewashed. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of "intelligence failures" but that is beyond the scope of our discussion here. For now, consider the following:


  • Mountains of evidence that pointed to the use of explosives in the attacks (including but not limited to eyewitness accounts of police and firefighters on the scene) was ignored by the Commission.
  • Compelling video evidence, not the least of which includes an "on camera" statement by Larry Silverstein that building 7 was "pulled" (a demolition term used to describe the controlled implosion of a building) was ignored. (Video Here)
  • After the government failed to suppress the firefighters radio transmissions to one another; transmissions that reported bombs going off in the buildings and fires that were far from raging; the newly available radio transmissions were, you guessed it, ignored. (Sample Audio 1)    (Sample Audio 2)
  • Video Added 12/2008: Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department, (NY City Housing Authority) Barry Jennings discusses explosions in WTC 7. Please note, Barry makes it clear that BOTH towers were standing when the bombs went off in WTC 7. (See embedded video below or, if you like, you can download the actual .wmv file here)


Remember, for a cover up to succeed, information that exposes the lie must be kept hidden. So, if during the course of an "investigation" those charged with getting to the bottom of things are openly destroying evidence, distracting attention away from obvious inconsistencies and suppressing information that paints a more convincing account of the facts; the LAST thing we should do is accept what they offer without question. -Since those in charge of explaining the events of 9/11 are clearly guilty on all counts, scrutiny of their claims is only logical.   


For a detailed list of what was left out of the "independent" 9/11 Commission Report, pick up a copy of David Ray Griffin's book: The 911 commission - omissions and distortions. Rest assured, every aspect of how 9/11 was handled has something seriously wrong with it - the Commissions "investigation" is no exception.


Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary arguments against


Presenting an uncluttered account of 9/11 inconsistencies is no easy task. The official account is so haphazard and full of holes, it's very hard to stay focused on one problem without being diverted into a string of related problems. With that in mind, try to forgive the following "rapid fire" outline:


We've got the "raging jet fuel theory" which (even if true) could have never generated sufficient heat to produce the molten metal found in all three buildings. In a logical world, we can't even begin discussing what caused the collapse of the buildings until we've identified what burned hot enough to create the molten iron. Why? Because whatever burned hot enough to create the molten iron is (logically) the most likely cause of collapse!

For the rest of this article, please visit this link: