Tehran Debris Dwarfs 9/11 NYC Debris

by

Morgan Reynolds

(Special thanks to a nomoregames.net booster)

On January 19 a fire broke out in a 17-story high rise in Tehran and the building collapsed, killing over 20 firefighters.  Photos and videos show that the building was no paragon of steel-framed skyscraper strength.

The “semi-official” Tasnim news agency reported that business units and shops inside the building were not insured because of a lack of required safety measures.

The Plasco building, Iran’s first private high-rise, was built in the early 1960s by an Iranian-Jewish businessman.   His granddaughter, Shahrzad Elghanayan, writes, “Instead of preserving the edifice, the building’s new owners allowed what had once been a bright, shining tower of Tehran’s skyline to turn into a ramshackle space, dwarfed and supplanted

Fire breaks out in a high-rise building in Tehran, Iran January 19, 2017. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS

Fire breaks out in a high-rise building in Tehran, Iran January 19, 2017. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS

by thousands of new skyscrapers.  Space originally designed for offices had been carved up and converted into hundreds of garment workshops.”  A fire brigade spokesman said: “Even in the stairwells, a lot of clothing is stored and this is against safety standards. The managers didn’t pay attention to the warnings.” The head of the shirt maker’s union, Mojtaba Droodian, told local Fars agency that the fire extinguishers were empty.

Smoke rises from a blazing high-rise building in Tehran, Iran January 19, 2017. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS

Smoke rises from a blazing high-rise building in Tehran, Iran January 19, 2017. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS

Elghanayan remarked, “If they were aware of the building’s violations, why hadn’t the owners or the city shut Plasco down until it was up to code?…the least they could have done was to ensure the safety of the people inside.”

The collapsed building towers over vehicles!

We can learn something about 9/11 from the tragic Tehran collapse.  How?  Because the Tehran event is powerful evidence confirming Dr. Judy Wood’s forensic investigation of 9/11 (p. 132), namely, post-collapse pictures reveal a Pasco building debris pile almost three stories tall, approximately what Dr. Wood teaches us to expect from a collapse or demolition of a 17-story high rise (17 floors x 0.125 = 2.125 floors).  Call it the 1/8+ rule.  Another example is the Seattle Kingdome which was 250 feet tall and left a 30-foot tall debris pile (Wood, p. 74).  By contrast “The [World Trade Center] rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building height” (Wood, p. 132).

Ambulance at WTC, approximately the height of debris pile!

Ambulance at WTC, approximately the height of debris pile!

Say what?  Let’s see: the rubble pile should have been 110 floors x 0.125 = 13.75 floors, not two stories.  Incredible!

Rubble should have been stacked 14 stories tall for each twin tower yet most of the WTC site was much closer to a zero “pile” or “stack” than 14 stories.  And no, the missing debris was not packed into the basement (Wood, pp. 54-60, 188-9).  Conventional calculations show there should have been 1.2 million tons of debris on the ground yet the photo record and witness testimony are “clearly not commensurate with that amount of debris” (Wood, p. 195).

By itself, the paucity of debris at WTC rules out airplane-fueled fires, controlled demolition, thermite, and mini-nukes as causes of the obliteration of the twin towers.

"Guys, there used to be 106 floors above us and now I'm seeing sunshine."

“Guys, there used to be 106 floors above us and now I’m seeing sunshine.” — Jay Jonas, firefighter, survivor in stairwell B.

Why?  Because none of these devices can convert a steel/concrete tower to primarily dust.  Airplane crashes, welding material and kinetic explosives pulverize (“chunkify”) solids, breaking them into smaller, recognizable pieces, with only incidental dust.  These means cannot turn two massive towers primarily into fine powder.  Nope, only an “unconventional” agent of obliteration could cause such an effect (“dustification”).

The other evidence gleaned from the WTC confirms and reinforces the extraordinary absence of debris too: huge, dense, unprecedented dust clouds, negligible seismic impact, a leak-proof, undamaged WTC bathtub, a lack of bodies, toilets, computers, office furniture and other contents  of the towers, etc.  Only one file drawer was ever recovered.

Then we have a New York Times article celebrating the fact that “[Those heading the cleanup and those removing the rubble at ground zero are trumpeting nothing short of a construction miracle…. The cleanup, it turns out, will take no more than nine months and cost no more than $750 million” instead of a year plus and $2.5 billion.  None of the alleged causes of the speedy clean-up included the mysterious lack of debris.  The NYT did note that “And the huge concrete basin that kept the Hudson River from leaking into the site has not, as many engineers feared, developed major cracks, which might have taken months and hundreds of millions of dollars to repair.”  No one thought to ask, however, how come 1.2 million tons of debris crashing down on the basin/bathtub failed to cause any damage?  What the blazes?  No sense asking difficult questions,  Never know where that might lead.

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Tehran Debris Dwarfs 9/11 NYC Debris

  1. onebornfree says:

    For Your Viewing Pleasure! Three 100% C.G.I., Hollywood, Pre- Fabricated,Tower Collapse Movie Animations:

    1] From “Independence Day”[ 1996]:

    2] WTC2 tower collapse animation sequence, from NBC’s official, on-line 9/11 archive:
    https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/
    [NBC being the _only_ US TV station to screen allegedly “live” footage of the collapse of WTC2, at 9:59 am] :

    3] WTC1’s tower collapse animation, from CNN’s official, on-line 9/11 archive at
    : https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/.

    [CNN being the _only_ US TV station to screen allegedly “live” footage of the collapse of WTC1 at 10:28 am. Collapse animation sequence starts after miraculous camera “zoom-in” at 2:38 in this clip. Please note at least 3 “live” camera edits in the space of 20 secs max of the “unexpected” collapse]:

    Note how the definition/ resolution and overall quality of clip [1] far exceeds the quality of either clip [2] or [3].

    See also :”The “WTC Collapse” Animation Sequences”:
    http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml

    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/

    • Woohoo! This just in: Hollywood makes movies, special effects often play a role in them, Hollywood has cgi expertise, often useful in creating those effects. I guess we should not believe everything we see on TV or in movies, huh?
      The heavy emphasis of some 9/11 writers (especially OBF) on video fakery has proven barren at minimum and a deliberate muddle-up of our 9/11 understanding at maximum, as Mark Conlon explains in his comment below. Rich Hall’s important work http://www.richplanet.net/911.php, for example, proves that the perpetrators used a secret technology to project an airplane image speeding into the WTC on 9/11. This conclusion, not alleged cgi, helps explain instability of the flight 175 plane image across different videos, the 550+ mph speed (though impossible near sea level for 767s), and the impossible non-violent penetration and disappearance of each plane inside the twin towers.
      I also note OBF’s avoidance of all other evidence about what happened at the WTC except alleging, not proving, video fakery of the dustification of each tower. But I repeat myself. See comments below and other 9/11 entries on this blog.

  2. onebornfree says:

    M.Reynolds said: “I’m a “liberal” (classical) but I’m seriously considering banning OBF’s future missives because it is a waste of my time to repeatedly refute his nonsense. And why give him this platform?”

    A “classical liberal”, you say? Hmmm.

    Here’s what Ludwig Von Mises [ the great classical liberal economist you are presumably familiar with], said about allowing the airing of contrary opinions :

    “In science, there is only one sure method for the ultimate triumph of an idea: one should allow any contrary notion to run its course completely.”

    As somebody apparently without Von Mises’ open scientific discussion convictions, you are free to ban anyone you want here, of course- its your blog, you “classical liberal ” , you.

    However, in my case, if you so decide, please do me a favor and notify your readers here in your comments section of my being banned, and exactly why. ‘preciate it 🙂 .

    M.Reynolds said: “…..I have no problem with the many pictures and videos of the twin towers turning to dust mid-air because that is what happened, as proven by a mountain of evidence gathered in Dr. Wood’s WDTTG.”

    Morgan, let’s “cut to the chase” here.

    Please tell me exactly where either Ms Wood or yourself have previously claimed to have either the skill or personal experience with forensic analysis of _any_videos and photos, for 9/11, or whatever.

    “Put Up or Shut Up”? :

    If neither of you have that skill/experience, why don’t you [and her] just come clean and publicly admit it, instead of prattling on about how you’d still be happy to allow such none- forensically analyzed “evidence” into yours, or somebody elses US criminal trial, just because the government, Ms. Wood and yourself all proclaim it to be authentic.

    Regards, onebornfree
    onebornfreeatyahoodotcom
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/

    • I had it right long ago: OBF is more accurately “One Note Johnny.” His latest missive is more of the same–yawn. And it is therefore unresponsive to my factual explanation about the courts, their tests for admissibility, what my defense would submit to the court’s authentication tests, etc. I answered your question about how I would defend myself. You ignore it? Fine.
      On Mises’ quotation, there is no way being banned on one private blog, paid for (“owned”) by me, not you brother, obstructs “any contrary notion to run its course completely.” It’s my property, not yours. There are other forums available to communicate your contrary notions. It is perfectly within my rights to decide you’re a trespasser (more prejudicial than probative) on my blog and escort you out, quite in good conscience and in harmony with my standing as a classic liberal.
      So let’s “cut to [your] chase.” What I see is more bloviation. No one has ever proven anything false in “Ms.” Wood’s text. Its evidence is authentic and would, in all justice, remain standing before any challenge in court. It is certainly all consistent. The burden is on you and your Shack buddy to prove nothing in her text is authentic–that no buildings unraveled into enormous quantities of ultra-fine dust, seismic impacts were not small but rather big and in line with the concentrated weight of “collapsing” buildings, that the bathtub was not intact but broke under crashing tonnage, that lower Manhattan thereby flooded, and that dozens of other predictable results happened rather than the “unusual” phenomena documented by Dr. Wood.
      You have proven to your own satisfaction that Dr. Wood and I do not have the gray matter or the skill/experience to conduct forensic investigations? This claim comes from an anonymous internet poster! You think your gutless assertion carries a lot of weight? With whom? Unidentified makes you a nobody, akin to the anonymous authors of the New Testament Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, with their fantastic tales of the supernatural yet without written reports whatever by contemporary writers like Josephus. Further, Dr. Wood’s area of expertise is forensic engineering using optical methods and image analysis (as discussed in her Foreword in WDTTG). She brings unique training, experience and skills to the analysis of 9/11 WTC events. But how would OBF know? I see no evidence that he has read the text which he denounces.
      We both have put our arguments and alleged facts before the public. Let those interested parties judge who has conducted the best forensic investigations thus far.

  3. onebornfree says:

    Onebornfree said :” …. and WTC2’s fall was only recorded “live” on CNN:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul–oYht2RE

    Oops… correction!!:

    I meant to say “WTC1’s fall [it fell 2nd] was only recorded “live” on CNN:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul–oYht2RE

    Sorry about that,
    regards, onebornfree

  4. onebornfree says:

    Onebornfree said :” ….. and WTC2’s fall was only recorded “live” on CNN:”:

    Oops, correction ! I meant WTC1 [which fell _2nd._] was recorded “live” on CNN.

    Sorry about that.

    regards, onebornfree

  5. onebornfree says:

    Morgan Reynolds said: “On January 19 a fire broke out in a 17-story high rise in Tehran and the building collapsed, killing over 20 firefighters. Photos and videos show that the building was no paragon of steel-framed skyscraper strength…..”

    Morgan, you did no do a whole lot of research on this, did you? 😦 .

    On viewing the posted video it looked to me as if the building collapses from the bottom up- suggesting the use of explosives, i.e. the standard modus operandi for demolishing high rise buildings.

    But as I was not sure of my observation, I did a quick youtube search and quickly found this :

    “Tehran Plasco Building Collapse compilation: Explosives Must Be Investigated “:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY ,

    which seems to indicate that explosives placed in the lowest floors were indeed used [assuming the video, and the one you originally posted, are genuine, that is.]

    My only point being that, the press seems to want us to believe the building collapsed merely because of fire, as is still claimed by N.I.S.T. and other sycophants with regard to the WTC tower top down “collapses”, as you are well aware.

    So is this alleged event just another attempt to bolster the official WTC tower collapses via fire B.S.?

    I don’t know. If it is, I’m not sure exactly why this was done at this time.

    P.S. _All_ of the original [now archived] footage of WTC towers 2, 1 and 7 collapsing [or whatever you want to call it], “live” on the MSM US networks on 9/11 was/is in fact 100% fake, pre-fabricated [i.e. prior to 9/11] digital footage, as researchers such as Simon Shack have revealed:

    http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml

    Therefor, close analysis of the 9/11 image records to try to divine exactly which type of demolition methodology [e.g. nukes or D .E.W. or whatever] was used to demolish the entire WTC complex [7 buildings +2 others], is a complete waste of time and effort.

    _Nothing_ can be learned from the 9/11 photographic “record” of those building collapses except for the [what should be] glaringly obvious fact that all of the available released imagery of those events is 100% fake.

    Most likely, all of the WTC buildings were demolished “bottom up” , using conventional methods [pre-placed dynamite charges].

    In my opinion, anyone who at this stage does not “get” the fact that the US MSM media was fully complicit in the 9/11 fraud, via its airing of totally fake “live” imagery on the morning of 9/11, is simply talking/walking in circles.

    Good luck with that, regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreeatyahoodotcom
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/

    • Oh no, the tiresome, annoying and anonymous OBF again! Ok, you “properly” accuse me of not doing “a whole lot of research” on the Tehran collapse, whether it was caused by “fire” as alleged, conventional demolition or related. I am not ashamed of that. Why? Because, among other reasons, the loud noise of explosives going “bang, bang, bang,” an essential for conventional demolition to blow the support columns out from under the building, is missing from the videos. However, let speculation, investigation and the rest proceed as they will on the Tehran collapse. I welcome more evidence on causation. Meanwhile, the cause of the Tehran collapse was likely not “exotic” if only because the evidence shows a debris pile of conventional height and appearance for a collapsed building and we can always look at more evidence to confirm conventional debris heights but unnecessary now because it is not in dispute. Well, I might add that it comports with the proposition that buildings are mostly air, say, 85%, not solids.
      More importantly, OBF claims it is a “complete waste of time and effort” to “divine exactly which type of demolition methodology…was used to demolish the entire WTC complex.” Divine? Really? We’re down to mysticism because of zero evidence? The reason offered? Because “all of the available released imagery of those events is 100% fake.” For proof we are directed to Simon Shack’s september clues. I can only term this ignorant and specious. Sorry ’bout that. OBF ignores the fact that we have 500 pages of correct scientific reasoning and evidence in Where Did the Towers Go, the only forensic investigation extant. All the evidence I know of is gathered there and is consistent, all pointing to the same cause: directed energy, a novel weaponry rolled out for most of us on 9/11 yet known to the perps for quite some time. They have their own 19-year-old Directed Energy Professional Society, supported by the likes of Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Applied Research Associates and more. Among the irrefutable facts from a rich assortment of post-event sources like eyewitness testimony, photos, scientific data like seismic readings, etc., to be explained by any purported explanation we have: enormous volumes of dust made up of nano-sized particles (as fine as DNA), an undamaged (!) WTC bathtub holding back the Hudson River, totally missing toilets and other contents of WTC1 and WTC2, cylindrical holes in buildings 4, 5, and 6, exploded Scott-Paks (firefighter portable air-tanks), incredibly low seismic impact by allegedly “collapsing” skyscrapers, weird fires that did not burn paper, 1,400 toasted cars (“totaled”), and so on. My God man, you accuse me of inadequate research and you fail to know the contents of Dr. Wood’s masterpiece? This is almost beyond ridiculous.

      • Ok, here’s another point to consider. Suppose all videos of WTC destruction were faked. So what? Most crimes that result in convictions (beyond reasonable doubt) have no video available of the crime being committed. Nonetheless, prosecutors routinely bring enough evidence of other kinds (not always of course) into court under adversarial conditions and prove up all elements of the charge whether it is a jury or judge-decided trial and thereby obtain a conviction of the accused. And when it comes to 9/11 at the WTC we have abundant evidence of many kinds.

        • onebornfree says:

          M.Reynolds: “Ok, here’s another point to consider. Suppose all videos of WTC destruction were faked”. So what? Most crimes that result in convictions (beyond reasonable doubt) have no video available of the crime being committed. Nonetheless, prosecutors routinely bring enough evidence of other kinds (not always of course) into court under adversarial conditions and prove up all elements of the charge whether it is a jury or judge-decided trial and thereby obtain a conviction of the accused. And when it comes to 9/11 at the WTC we have abundant evidence of many kinds.”

          Morgan, I’m so pleased that you brought up the whole courtroom/legal “evidence” issue.

          Sad to say, just like 99% of the so-called 9/11 “truth movement”, you appear to have the whole “burden of proof” issue, entirely [and disturbingly], “bass-ackward” as they say.

          I’ve been looking at 9/11 issues since around 2006, and I have to say that the longer I’ve looked, the more convinced I’ve become that the _primary_ issue involving alleged “serious” review of any/all claimed 9/11 “evidence”, is the issue of the burden of proof and who [ or whom] it actually falls on.

          N.B. Without a clear understanding of this _very_ important issue, all so-called 9/11 researchers are more or less doomed to failure in their attempts to get to the bottom of 9/11 [and similar].

          Let me try to illustrate my claim by asking you this:

          if _you_ personally were on trial in a federal criminal court, accused of being a “9/11 terrorist”, and the prosecution [i.e. the government] attempted to introduce videos and photos of the claimed events of 9/11 [planes flying into buildings, buildings collapsing etc.] in order to gain a conviction [of you]; as a defendant, would you, or would you not have the right to, if necessary, thoroughly “cross examine” all of those videos/photos in court, to try to discredit them as being untrustworthy, or fake?

          The same goes for any/all other evidence that the government tried to use to prove your guilt, i.e. all alleged eyewitness testimony [and their videos/photos], all alleged “seismic evidence”, all alleged E.P.A. or other alleged government “scientific” studies of the events of 9/11, etc. etc. Yes? No?

          Real Life Trial?

          Now a real life, none pre-rigged criminal trial for the alleged crimes of 9/11is extremely unlikely, as you are probably well aware, which means that the individual researcher is [ or “should be”] _obligated_ to consistently apply to his/her research the burden of proof principle to _all_ claimed [i.e unproven] 9/11 evidence, _outside_ of a courtroom, surely?

          That is:

          i]_All_ alleged “live” video and still photo “evidence”.
          ii]_All_ alleged “eyewitness testimony”
          iii]_All_ alleged seismic and environmental study evidence………

          …..before _any_ part of it is accepted as being genuine, surely?

          Sad to say, practically the entire, so-called “9/11 truth movement” [ J.Wood, S.Jones, J.Fetzer, A. Baker, R.Hall, D. Kalezov, A&E for 9/11 Truth, We Are Change, Pilots For 9/11 Truth etc. etc.], has either, out of ignorance, or perhaps even willfully, _refused_ to apply [outside a courtroom] the very simple burden of proof principle as it is supposed to be used [i.e. to protect the rights of the “innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt”, individual defendant in a US criminal courtroom, as per the US Bill of Rights] , to any/all 9/11 “evidence” they have collectively to date reviewed.

          Please see:” The 9/11 Truth Movement Vs. The Burden of Proof”:
          http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/10/911-scams-911-truth-movement-versus.html

          Regards, onebornfree
          onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

          To be continued………………….

        • This is pathetic, really. OBF continues his muddle-up campaign contending that there is no authentic evidence, a claim virtually without proof, available from the most important political event of the 21st century, most of which occurred in downtown Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001. Preposterous on its face, this conclusion is reinforced upon closer examination.
          I’m a “liberal” (classical) but I’m seriously considering banning OBF’s future missives because it is a waste of my time to repeatedly refute his nonsense. And why give him this platform?
          OK, one more go-round. My background research includes a discussion with my 2d son who is an experienced former prosecutor and currently practicing criminal defense attorney. The law has two tests for admissibility of evidence in a trial: relevance and authenticity. Relevance is usually easy to establish, only slightly complicated by the test that the probative value of the evidence exceed its prejudicial effect. The prosecution must show all its evidence to the defense pretrial and the defense can object, although stipulation is common. Authenticity is OBF’s big gripe but the side objecting to admissibility on this basis must convince the judge that the submitted evidence is not authentic on one ground or another. That means bringing proof, something OBF lacks in his absurd, sweeping, unproven claim that we have zero reliable evidence of what happened on 9/11 at one of the most populous (daytime) locations in the world plus a major media center.
          OK, suppose I’m indicted as a terrorist and on trial. I have no problem with the many pictures and videos of the twin towers turning to dust mid-air because that is what happened, as proven by a mountain of evidence gathered in Dr. Wood’s WDTTG. It sure as hell wasn’t a conventional demolition as “Simon Shack” asserts. And the courts are quite experienced in dealing with audio, photographic and video evidence. In my defense I would introduce the evidence of plane fakery gathered on this blog (relevant if plane hijacking and crashes were part of the criminal charge) and elsewhere (e.g., Elias Davidsson’s book) plus relevant evidence gathered in WDTTG. Such evidence proves that no terrorist or small group of same could possibly pull off the crime because they would have had to have access to the technology, in particular, plane image projection and a weapon to dustify most of the WTC with little damage to surrounding buildings. That is, the prosecution has to prove the accused had the MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to commit the crime. That would not be in evidence; the prosecution is toast, in other words. My primary evidence would be supplemented, of course, by the prosecution’s lack of evidence proving my participation in any conspiracy pre-9/11, my credibility as a solid citizen via documents and witnesses, etc. My basic problem would be a judge (it’s the government’s court run by a government-appointed judge) prejudiced on behalf of the prosecution and thereby barring my evidence. On the other hand, I’ve got the jury going for me and defense counsel would punch hole after hole in the prosecutor’s pathetic case. Well, maybe the prosecutor will bring in OBF during admissibility hearings to assert no authentic evidence about the crime exists. Excuse my guffaw.

        • onebornfree says:

          Continued…………………:

          M. Reynolds said:”Ok, here’s another point to consider. Suppose all videos of WTC destruction were faked”.

          Morgan, f.y.i., to this day, there are only _2_ MSM network videos that can justifiably claim to be actual live footage of the tower “collapses”[ assuming one naively takes the MSM at its word, without first applying the burden of proof principle] .

          Not 5, not 10, not 50, not 100……._2_ !! Got that?

          These 2 are both still part of the original, “live” MSM video records of the official on-line 9/11 archives mirrored here: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html

          So, unlike Flight 175, [whose equally fake “strike” into WTC2 is in the online “live” record for all 5 MSM networks], only _2_ stations supposedly recorded “live”, the collapses of WTC1 and 2.

          One station for each collapse:

          WTC2’s “collapse” was supposedly “live” on NBC, and on no other station :

          ….. and WTC2’s fall was only recorded “live” on CNN:

          Both sequences are still in the official online MSM archives linked above.

          My “Logic” :

          So “logically” speaking [ by my “logic” , anyway 🙂 ], if close examination of either of these two original, still on-line, archived, MSM recordings of the demise of the twin towers shows either one to be demonstrably fake, then “logically” it must mean that all other alleged footage of the tower collapses that show them disappearing in similar [top down] fashion, regardless of source, must also be fake. [Same goes for the alleged photos of same 2 events].

          “False In One- False In All”:

          Please also see the often useful usually ignored legal principle :” False in one, false in all.”:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus

          As I previously noted [ and utilizing the previously mentioned “burden of proof” principle] Simon Shack’s close analysis demonstrates that both of these original, archived,”live” MSM sequences of the tower “collapses” are 100% digital fakes:

          http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.shtml

          CNN- Perfectly Timed Camera “Zoom-Ins” and Perspective Changes In 20 secs, or Less:

          For the uninitiated, his analysis of the CNN footage of WTC1’s collapse is probably easier to understand, merely from the point of view of the amazingly coincidental, perfectly timed, pre-collapse, camera”zoom-in”, followed by what are evidently at least 3 abrupt changes of camera perspective within the course of a 20 second, supposedly unpredicted, “live” tower collapse.

          For Sale: Ocean Front Property In Nevada- Get It while It’s Hot [ and cheap]!:

          If anyone out there seriously believes that a CNN studio editor would, after a miraculously timed zoom-in, then have the both the gall, prescience, and presence of mind to switch cameras 3-4 times within the course of an unanticipated, “live” tower collapse that lasted 20 secs. at most, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Nevada to sell them that they should be interested in 🙂 .

          Wanna buy in on that Real Estate, , Mr Reynolds?

          Regards, onebornfree
          onebornfreeatyahoo

    • Mark Conlon says:

      OBF, If you’re referring to Simon Shack who has consistently and conveniently ignored evidence and deliberately misled viewers in his September Clues video with his alleged missing buildings, planes, helicopters, and layering glitches, then people should read my blog where I have conducted analysis disproving his points in his September Clues video, along with other people such as, Markus Allen, and soon to be yours as well OBF. http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com

  6. Robert E. Salt says:

    There’s something wrong with this collapse. I don’t like it! Where did the fire start? How did it spread throughout the building? Some of what appears to be smoke on the right side of the building is sinking. Part of the steel frame seems to be sinking into the ground like Building 7. It’s as if a touch of the 9/11 weapon was used to hasten a collapse and show that a fire can collapse a steel frame building, which it can’t. Very suspicious! Please consult Dr. Wood. I learned a lot from her. I hope she can give me a gold star.

  7. dachsielady says:

    For many years, I have over-imbibed articles about the 9-11 WTC dust. Been there, done that. And even though I have been left with many unanswered questions, I still have an intact B S – o – meter. (B S = Bad Science)
    I did skim through your article. The first thing I noticed is that you do not mention of 47 story WTC Building 7 and its rubble pile. You only compare the WTC Buildings 1 and 2, the Twin Towers. I think I know your reason for this glaring omission.
    “Dr. Judy Wood’s forensic investigation of 9/11 (p. 132), namely, post-collapse pictures reveal a Pasco building debris pile almost three stories tall, approximately what Dr. Wood teaches us to expect from a collapse or demolition of a 17-story high rise (17 floors x 0.125 = 2.125 floors). Call it the 1/8+ rule.”
    Yes, Dr. Wood and Dr. Fetzer have taught us what to expect from the debris pile for WTC Building 7 and that is exactly what we got with Building 7.
    Yet, Dr. Judy Wood thinks that Building 7 went gone from the same cause the Twin Towers went gone.

    “By itself, the paucity of debris at WTC rules out airplane-fueled fires, controlled demolition, thermite, and mini-nukes as causes of the obliteration of the twin towers.”

    There is no “paucity”, small or insufficient quantities or amounts or scarcity, of debris. All of the debris just went to two places – up in the air and on the ground.

    The debris was not “obliterated” in the sense that the debris was not completely destroyed. The debris was moved or re-moved.

    No, the so called “paucity of debris” does NOT rule out mini-nukes. As you say, prove it up.

    Yes, the Twin Towers were, to use another of your memorable phrases, blown to kingdom come, but they were blown somewhere.

    • Bad science? I think you have me confused with NIST, NIST contractors, Purdue University, Steven E. Jones, Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman, and countless others. Nor do I think you know my reason for focusing on the Twin Towers. I suspect you are accusing me of a nefarious deed, a deliberate attempt to mislead by omission, which is way wrong. No, I concentrated on the twin towers because they were the star of 9/11, simple as that. They were the main target of the perpetrators in their Hollywood spectacular. You don’t agree? Called me simple minded OK, but not a bad guy; I just thought, after seeing the Tehran collapse, readers might appreciate a clear, irrefutable “outing” of the official lie about how the the twin towers met their end.
      You’re really asking for another article to take up WTC buildings 3-7. Ok, let’s do a quick rundown. Half of 22-story WTC3 (Marriott Hotel) “was missing after the destruction of WTC2, and the rest of it was gone after the destruction of WTC1 except for a small stub on the south end” (Wood, pp. 142, 198). Minimal debris confirms a dustification weapon. The main body of 9-story WTC4 just east of WTC2 was gone too (turned to ultra-fine dust), below ground was intact, the ruined north wing survived as if “neatly sliced off” and for 7+ years the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood continued to fume (pp. 176, 186, 188, 191, 481). Perps showing off? Probably, “lookee here what we got!” The 9-story WTC5 suffered “mysterious” vertical holes and was left standing but seriously damaged (p. 207). The 8-story WTC6 just north of WTC1 had its center famously hollowed out via cylindrical holes during the destruction of WTC1, with little debris remaining at the bottom, losing about half its volume without “steel wheatchex” in it, so no evidence WTC1 debris fell on WTC6 exists (pp. 192, 198). Nor could bombs account for this damage. Plus “The parking garage below WTC6 remained essentially undamaged, as Figure 194 shows” (p. 200). No building offers evidence of floor “pancakes” stacked up (p. 200, 206). If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. But most of the WTC3, 4, 5 and 6 mass is missing, converted to dust, or else the structure’s basics remain. And WTC7? First, the seismic reading of 0.6 proves that no 47-story steel skyscraper weighing 200,000+ tons ever slammed to the earth (p. 87). “…there’s basically no seismic event for WTC7’s demise” (p. 87) and NIST agrees. Second, there was virtually no sound, it was “whisper quiet,” certainly no “bang, bang, bang” of explosives in a conventional bottom-up controlled demolition nor tons of screeching steel collapsing and shearing (p. 85-6, 482). Third, “debris from the WTC7 did not reach the sidewalk adjacent to the Postal Building” (p. 89). How neat. While little debris actually slammed to the ground at the WTC site (p. 172), the remains of WTC7 “is at least five stories high” (pp. 192-3). OK, 47 floors x 0.125 = 5.875 floors, so within range of the 1/8th rule. The explanation seems to lie in the fact that WTC7 “lathered” dust from one side for several hours before destruction, turning itself to dust from inside out and then the exterior shell collapsed at 5:20p, making a semi-normal pile but still too small. The tower did not remain as a rigid body as it fell (p. 481). Wood calculates that the upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth (p. 483). “The WTC7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the building, and much of it consisted of mud” according to Wood (p. 483). And how did that pile turn to dirt/mud (p. 288)? Beats me but it sure made for a bigger pile to photograph. Maybe George Stephanopoulos can help us.

    • Mark Conlon says:

      My question to you dachsielady as you quote Dr. Fetzer in your comment above. Why did Dr. Fetzer ignore the seismic readings of 0.6 of the WTC 7 building. I have challenged him to explain this considerable lack of a reading in the seismic data and his controlled demolition theory? Please can you explain this also, or get him to as he keeps ignoring this evidence, and keeps promoting theories to muddle-up the evidence. Thanks!

      PS: I don’t think Dr. Fetzer taught us anything about the evidence that he found-out or researched himself, and to link him to any research of Dr. Wood’s findings is very confusing, as it was Dr. Wood who taught us about the evidence, NOT Dr. Fetzer.

      • Fetzer invited me to call in to his Rense radio show, “The Raw Deal,” last Tuesday to discuss my Tehran article. I said Ok and at first it went OK as I had an opportunity to describe what I did in the article but when I wanted to move on to the question of the cause of the 9/11 virtual disappearance of the Twin Towers he would not go there. That was part of the article. We had a moment of talking over each other and the “call-in” was gone. There is no way he could win a debate with me on this vital issue. No way. Prove me wrong, Professor Fetzer. C’mon, I dare you.

        • Mark Conlon says:

          Morgan, Fetzer wasn’t comfortable with directed energy weapons and seismic data in the interview, he kept trying to shut you down… I have contacted him several times asking him to address WTC 7 and the seismic reading of 0.6, because he keeps calling the WTC 7 destruction a controlled demolition. Why does he kept ignoring the seismic data on WTC 7? It was obvious in the interview with you he was trying to control you, which he couldn’t, so ended the phone call. I think Andrew Johnson is right about Fetzer, he is nothing more than the manager of information, and his main job is to cover-up and muddle-up the evidence. He also did this regarding ‘video fakery’ which appears from my research was another psy-op which he helped manage to cover-up the advance technology used which somehow put a fake plane in the sky on 9/11 which many people videoed and photographed. The objective was to cover that up, so ‘video fakery’ was born, just as the thermite muddle-up by Steve e. Jones. Fetzer certainly promoted all those people such as: Killtown, Ace Baker, Peggy Carter and the Webfairy, which no consider all to part of a muddle-up, which was headed up with a film called September Clues, which I’m now demonstrating that the errors in Shacks claims are more of deliberate than genuine errors. http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com

  8. The complete disappearence of more than 1,100 victims from the WTC – reported in US media – who were apparently “pulverized” or “dustified” on 9/11, supports the author’s suspicions. I know of no energy source that is capable of transforming human beings within seconds into fine dust. The New York authorities owe us all an explanation.

  9. andrewjohnson911 says:

    An excellent summary for people asking questions about this event… Thanks for posting it Morgan…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s