Reader claims 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy - Baltimore Post-ExaminerBaltimore Post-Examiner

Reader claims 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy

Dear Editor,

This is in regards to your Post-Examiner article “General David Petreaus conspiracy solved.” If you were to actually look into the 9/11 affair, you would learn that it was very much a conspiracy indeed. The manner in which all THREE buildings each suddently collapsed into its footprints at nearly free-fall speed (on video) had to involve pre-planned controlled demolition, as over 1700 engineers and architects have attested (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth )  No person who can think for himself and who becomes motivated into investigating the matter could believe otherwise.

Dozens of other connected explanatory facts all lead to the same conclusion: After learning well in advance of Bin Laden’s hijacking plans, from the Mossad, certain neocons in the administration and sympathizers carefully planned how to make it be successful and to be like a second Pearl Harbor.

The concensus is that Dick Cheney was in overall charge, in league with other neocons Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Quite a few others, mainly Zionists or Israeli supporter-extremists, were let in on only particular aspects of the overall job. E.g., Zionist Jeremy Kroll and his company were in charge of security at the World Trade Center, which Larry Silverstein had purchased early in the year and insured heavily against terrorism; afterwards he profited by over a billion. In my opinion, Pres. George Bush was in on very little of it.

At first glance it may indeed seem unthinkable that anyone in our administration would promote such a dastardly and horrendous deed. However, getting  fresh public support for beefing up our military, especially in the Middle East, and for attacking one or more of Israel’s enemies had top priority for some, and required a new Pearl Harbor. Besides misplaced patriotism being responsible for this conspiracy having been whitewashed and dismissed, there is also the continuing fear of false claims of anti-Semitism by the ADF and AIPAC  against  prominent investigators.


Jim Deardorff
Research Professor emeritus
Oregon State University

About the author



  1. umbrarchist says:

    We do have a rather curious situation regarding the Internet and tall man made structures. Don’t these structures have to be bottom heavy to be strong enough to support their weight and withstand the wind?

    Search the Internet and you can find the “Center of Gravity” of the Seattle Space Needle. But try finding the height of the center of gravity of any other famous tall man made structures, the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, the CN Tower in Toronto. Didn’t the designers of all of these structures have to know that before construction began?

    So why don’t we have it for the Twin Towers to analyze the supposed collapses? So don’t we need to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? 14 years and scientists and engineers haven’t pointed out this peculiarity.

  2. umbrarchist says:

    The conspirators and the government are irrelevant to the 9/11 Affair
    after all of these years. This is now an issue of science and related
    to the Galileo Affair. Scientists celebrate Galileo but because of 9/11
    they should stop.

    Galileo came up with the square-cube law. It is about the strength
    versus the size of a material and its weight. This is important to the
    design of skyscrapers. Since 9/11, 50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall
    have been constructed. This is not rocket science.

    If the north tower could collapse in less than 30 seconds scientists
    should have explained it in 2002. If it could not happen without more
    destructive forces involved than airliner impact and fire then they
    should have explained that in 2002. But instead we do not even have a
    table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level
    of the towers. How could any skyscraper be designed without figuring
    that out?

    So scientists must put themselves on trial about 9/11. The Laws of Physics are watching.

  3. Stuffinpup says:


    Here’s a news story that raises many eyebrows. Despite this news, neither the Bush Administration, the FBI, nor US mainstream media have ever revised their narrative. Perhaps that would raise too many obvious questions. I totally understand.

  4. Stuffinpup says:

    For anyone who has not heard: World Trade Center Building 7 was the third building to completely collapse at approximately 5:20pm on 9/11. It was NOT struck by a plane. Oddly, the 9/11 Commission official report didn’t make a single mention of WTC 7.

    Here, firefighters speak about their knowledge and experiences of 9/11. There are also video comparisons of the WTC 7 collapse and some real-world controlled demolitions. Highly recommended video:

  5. Stuffinpup says:

    I applaud Professor Deardorf for stepping forward with his concerns. Each one of his statements can be verified through minimal research.

    American news media has a blackout on this topic, which is a crime of omission. News media in the US plays a key role in protecting democracy and the rule of law. News reporters have been entrusted with the flow of vital information to the public, a responsibility in which ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS (though to its credit, local stations have aired “Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out”) and most other American media have failed miserably.

    Alternative news sources, such as RT News have taken up the call, and done some great reporting and offered interesting and insightful discussions. One such discussion is a recent Op-Ed, “Eleven enduring mysteries of 9/11”

    It begins: “Without wandering into the tall grass of conspiracy theory, here are 11 well documented mysteries of 9/11 that warrant an investigation into the two hours that changed the course of world history.”

  6. Stuffinpup says:

    World Trade Center 7 came down the same afternoon in a manner perfectly consistent with controlled demolition. NIST has changed it’s official story several times, particularly after being challenged by physics teacher David Chandler.

    NIST’s report is troubling because it skirts around the essential details of what happened after the initiation of collapse, failing to provide a full and complete explanation. Lacking this completeness, the report appears to be either a cover-up or outright fraud.

    In November 2008 NIST finally acknowledged that Building 7 descended at free fall. NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sundar stated: “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].” However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

    NIST fails to explain how free-fall descent could occur in a steel framed building for ANY length of time. Why? Presumably because it requires acknowledging that explosives were used.

  7. umbrarchist says:

    The 9/11 Affair is an issue of gravity just like the Galileo Affair. But now it is a dismal failure of scientists not a triumph of science. If airliners could destroy the towers in less than two hours then scientists should have explained it in good detail in 2002.

    Now the issue is not who did it but why scientists and engineering schools have no integrity. The Laws of Physics do not care about nationalism or money or people.

  8. Chew says:

    Deardorff is the crackpot who fell for the photographs Billy Meier said was of aliens that turned out to be actresses on TV.

    • Albury Smith says:

      He does seem to have a little trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality and fact from fiction.

      • Stuffinpup says:

        Chew and Albury: nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in a flash. This topic deserves better than cheap shots, ridicule and name-calling. Grow up.

        • Albury Smith says:

          GeeDubya and Deadeye went into full PYA mode after being caught with their pants down by the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11. US troops should’ve been in Afghanistan after the suicide bombing of the USS Cole was definitely linked by Ali Soufan and John P. O’Neill’s FBI investigation teams to bin Laden right before they were inaugurated. Clinton didn’t want to start a war that his successor would be stuck with, and assumed that President Bush’s kid would take care of it. The new administration did NOTHING about the al Qaeda threat until 9/11 woke them up.
          The main perpetrator got his on May 2, 2011, KSM and his nephew Ramzi Yousef are rotting in prison, and Ayman al-Zawahiri will only keep breathing if he continues to have a zero profile. You ask questions and then ignore the answers.

  9. Harold Saive says:

    Decide for yourself. Especially people who were too young to integrate this event at the time. You deserve to be informed about what millions of others have known for a decade….The facts and science about the deliberate demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 have been translated into several languages available at

    • Dan Plesse says:

      A&E only look at a very small keyhole of 9/11.

      For Example

      Thermite Fireballs will be covered up by A&E

      • Albury Smith says:

        All sizzle and no steak. The corners of the WTC towers weren’t even load-bearing, and chips of whatever in the dust could very well have been close in color to the flames shooting out of the NE corner of the South Tower, but so what? Few to no FDNY and others involved in the cleanup found anything suspicious, including Dr. Barnett, who’s featured in your video for some reason. Do all of those people need someone who wasn’t there to tell them what they saw?

        • Stuffinpup says:

          Wow – you are everywhere – equally unhinged in your devotion to defending official lies, to your discredit.

          A steel-framed building CANNOT lose 100% of its strength simultaneously without the use of explosives. It never happened and it never will. Grow up.

          • Albury Smith says:

            Since you drink the Kool-Aid, ask Box Boy* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215
            sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
            If they ever HAD TO do
            it, this “debate” would be OVER.

            *Box Boy’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Oh Albury, your photo of a pile of unused steel beams proves everything you say!! Wow – that’s so amazing!!

            Are you ok? Seriously, if that’s all you’ve got, just give up.

          • Albury Smith says:

            It’s a photo of a W14 X 730, just like 11 of WTC 7’s 24 core columns and the 4 corner columns in eact tower’s core. Duuuuuh.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            What is so COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS about your “point” is that in this video, Gage is demonstrating the fallacy of NIST’s claim: NIST claims, in their official report (as does Popular Mechanics) that both small boxes would land at the same time. Now THAT is a laugh!!

          • Albury Smith says:

            It certainly is:
            Neither NIST nor PopMech has ever claimed that either tower free fell. Box Boy and other 9/11 truther nuts claim that they “nearly” did, but the North Tower wasn’t even down to the height of WTC 7 when the loose debris began hitting the ground, so it’s obvious to most people that the (free falling) debris was going MUCH faster than the collapse zone.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Wow. 1) You’re such an expert, you don’t even have your facts straight. 2) You’re confused: NIST and PopMech both claim that the top would fall as rapidly through a steel-framed building as it would through air, because that’s how quickly the buildings came down.

            NIST finally admitted free fall in 2008, after physics teacher David Chandler confronted them. NIST was forced to re-write their official report. They admit free-fall, but stop at that point without discussing the grave implications.

            Watch NIST’s Shyam Sundar stutter in response to David Chandler’s direct and scientifically accurate question about free-fall:

            David Chandler’s questions that day forced NIST to re-write their report.

          • Albury Smith says:

            I just showed you proof that neither tower even came close to free falling, but it apparently didn’t register. A ~2.25-second portion of WTC 7’s EXTERIOR collapse was at g (it took ~8.5 seconds overall), and that’s easily explained by the framing details and collapse sequence. Since the interior was already collapsing, part of the exterior collapse could theoretically have EXCEEDED g.
            One-Trick Chandler added nothing to anyone’s real understanding of what caused the WTC 7 collapse, and only “forced NIST” to admit this trivial, irrelevant, and inconsequential fact in 9/11 “truth movement” legend.
            Try your cause-divining crap on video of the REAL C/D of a


            Every column on every floor in real C/Ds isn’t cut with explosives, so just by analyzing the acceleration, tell me which floors collapsed because of explosives and which ones solely or almost solely from gravity.
            One-Trick should take his show on the road:


            Be sure to send him a big donation for his “9/11 analysis”; he begs for them on his web site.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Two seconds of free-fall is HARDLY “insignificant”. However, free-fall for ANY length of time indicates that structural support has been removed by detonation. You are a such a dedicated shill for the official story – that much you have proven. You clearly take no interest in facts.

          • Albury Smith says:

            Divining the causes of building collapses by timing them is stupid enough, but at least get the times right:

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Oh, you mean I was off by 5 seconds? You are SUCH a brilliant analyst. Why don’t you go get a job at NIST? They desperately need people like you.

            If you use your eyes AND your brain—and I know that’s tough—YOUR video, right here, CLEARLY shows something extremely interesting:
            The collapse wave, the wave of destruction, is zooming down the walls of the building FASTER than the debris moving through the air. I’ll repeat it for you, so you can think (though I know you probably won’t bother). . . . . . . debris blowing out……running down the building FASTER than the debris that is moving through the AIR.

            This is an irrefutable signature of controlled demolition.

            If that weren’t enough, (and it certainly is!), there is absolutely zero deceleration. No impact of one floor, hitting the next, impact, deceleration, descent, impact, deceleration. No deceleration. Again, a clear sign that the lower structure has been blown out before the upper part lands on it.

            If the building weren’t being blown up, the structural steel would provide a minimum of 50% structural resistance, and it would take approximately 10x longer for the building to fall than it did. Your quibbling about 5 seconds. . . omg. What a loser.

          • Albury Smith says:

            You were off by 6+ and 13+ seconds, and obviously know nothing at all about building collapse dynamics, WTC tower construction, controlled demolition, or even simple physics. The “shockwaves” were the effects of ~125,000 and ~60,000 TON upper blocks crashing into the intact structures below, and of the roughly half million cubic feet of air per floor being rapidly compressed and finding exit points on the exterior. Since explosives in real C/Ds go off BEFORE the building starts to fall, and even the smoke from the fires remained undisturbed until the collapses began, shock waves from your imaginary explosives were noticeably absent in both towers. (No problem though; I’m sure your imaginary explosives will morph into imaginary incendiaries numerous times by tomorrow.)
            Since free fall time from 1368′ is ~9.22 seconds, the overall elapsed times indicate very obvious deceleration from g at every impact, and with plane damage on one side, fire-induced failures on the opposite (and adjacent in the South Tower) side, and overloading of the remaining columns, gravity determined the rest.
            236 of the 283 columns in each tower were IN PLAIN SIGHT, making your secret C/D “theory” even more asinine.

    • Albury Smith says:

      Have they been translated into a language that the ASCE, NCSEA, SEAoNY, ICC, RIBA, AIA, and other established engineering and architectural organizations can understand? Gage and his cronies have neglected to enlighten them personally with his asinine dog-and-pony show at any of their conferences or conventions.

      • Stuffinpup says:

        Richard Gage is a full member of the AIA, and to my knowledge he has not been shut out for speaking out. Quite the contrary, many AIA members have signed Richard’s petition, asking for a better investigation than we have so far been provided by NIST.

        You HAVE to be a PAID SHILL. No sane person could go on like you with these false arguments, one after another defending indefensible lies. Pathetic.

        • Albury Smith says:

          Look him up on the AIA web site. If he is a full member, they don’t want to admit it.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            I don’t see ANY AIA membership roster on their website. What’s your point?

          • Albury Smith says:

            Do you see the search window in the upper right on the homepage? Type in “Richard Gage.”

          • Stuffinpup says:

            You know, Albury, almost 3,000 Americans, New Yorkers, my neighbors died in seconds on 9/11. I have a problem with shills like you throwing lies on their graves. It’s unpatriotic. It’s un-American and it’s disgusting. Frankly, your devotion to defending and promoting lies disgusts me.

          • Albury Smith says:

            Visit some FDNY firehouses and tell them how much they disgust you. Few to none of them are in your 9/11 “truth movement,” and 343 of those almost 3000 Americans who died on 9/11 were their colleagues, relatives, and close friends.
            Enlighten the Local 40 & 361 Ironworkers too. They built the WTC hi-rises and later worked at GZ handling the steel during the ~8 months of cleanup, so you should tell them about all of the C/D evidence they missed. Their HQ is in Long Island City – look them up and visit some of their meetings. They’ll disgust you just as much as the FDNY will.
            Box Boy has had enough sense not to enlighten these people personally. Good move…

          • Stuffinpup says:

            The people you mention aren’t out there promoting and spewing lies all over the place like you are. No, they have ethics, and are heros.

            On the other hand, I guess you’ve never heard of Fireman Eric Lawyer. Other firemen’s TESTIMONY FULLY SUPPORTS what Richard Gage is saying. Here’s a video with NYC firemen talking about BOMBS in the WTC complex:

          • Albury Smith says:

            Lawyer’s a nutcase, and his petition had (it was disabled months ago) ~6 signatories who even CLAIMED to be past or present FDNY. Your troofer video shows no firefighters claiming to have heard DEMOLITION explosIVES, and that the explosions they heard collapsed any WTC hi-rise.

          • Albury Smith says:

            Your 9/11 crackpot’s petition is once again accessible online:
            A ctrl-f search I did a few weeks ago showed only one
            signatory to it who even CLAIMS to have been among the FDNY at the WTC on 9/11, two others including an “xxxxxxxx” who both claim to have retired from duty prior to 9/11/01, one claiming to be a NYC firefighter’s sister, and two “in memory of [the FDNY or a specific member],” one of whom is the same or a different “xxxxxxxx.” There were ~10,000 FDNY in 2001, and MANY FDNY firefighters and other first responders were at the WTC on 9/11, so don’t they care as much as you do about the deaths of 343 of their colleagues? At least 125 of them reported hearing explosions inside the burning WTC hi-rises, so why are so few of them 9/11 troofers?

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Even Pentagon employees doubt the official fairy tale. No one who has done any serious research can buy it either. When are YOU going to get off it?

            “It was an article of Army faith to her that she was working in the most secure building in the world. They had told her that over and over when she was transferred from Germany to the Pentagon in 2000, the days of briefings about air defenses, early warning systems, impregnable security. They said it couldn’t happen.”


          • Albury Smith says:

            Here’s another article of Army [and universal] faith for you:
            Reagan National Airport is less than one mile from the Pentagon, and has a runway pointed right at its NE corner. There are no “air defenses, early warning systems, [or] impregnable security” that could’ve stopped a hijacked airliner from being crashed into it in the little time US air defenses had to respond on 9/11/01.
            Erik Lawyer and his crackpots are allegedly “firefighters” for 9/11 “truth” about the (fire-induced) WTC hi-rise collapses; they’re not no-plane nuts, at least to my knowledge.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Albury Smith wrote: “There are no “air defenses, early warning systems, [or] impregnable security” that could’ve stopped a hijacked airliner from being crashed into it in the little time US air defenses had to respond on 9/11/01.”

            This is an utterly ignorant statement, denying the existence of fighter jets, ground-to-air missiles, and the widely known fact that Flight 77 had been in the air for over 1 hour and had been detected on the Pentagon’s radar system long before it struck. Fighter jets can — and frequently are — scrambled within 10 minutes of an alert. This is necessary to protect the nation’s capital.

            The New Pearl Harbor, Part 2 –

          • Albury Smith says:

            You’re seriously fos. AA 77 wasn’t even recognized by ATC as a hijacking until just before 9 AM, and it was crashed into the Pentagon at 09:37:46 AM. NORAD had only its usual 2 armed F15s on standby at Otis and 2 F16s at Langley, and the Langley fighters went east around DC air traffic and then north to NYC, where the first 2 attacks had already occurred.
            It took NORAD ~1 hour and 20 minutes just to intercept Payne Stewart’s Learjet, and its transponder wasn’t disabled. Are you really stupid enough to believe that US fighter pilots WANTED al Qaeda suicide attacks to succeed?

          • Stuffinpup says:

            When Albury Smith grows up, he will learn that calling people he disagrees with “stupid”/”crazy”/”idiot”, etc., only makes him look juvenile.

            Secretary of Transportation on 9/11, Norman Minetta, recalls the Vice President monitoring the flight coming in and apparently gave an order NOT to intercept the incoming plane. Mr. Minetta’s damning testimony was ultimately omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.


          • Albury Smith says:

            Mineta and Hamilton were very clearly discussing a SHOOT-DOWN order:

            Seriously wtf is wrong with you?

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Below is a link to the Oral Histories recorded by New York firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. HUNDREDS of NYC emergency personnel are ON RECORD supporting EXACTLY what Richard Gage and AE911truth are saying.

            The New York Times had to go to court to gain access to these histories from the New York City Mayor’s office, which didn’t want to make them public.

            Contained in these Oral Histories are HUNDREDS of reports — by firemen — of bombs, explosions. Firemen don’t need to wave signs on the street to show support: firemen have given their support to AE911 through these testimonies:


          • Albury Smith says:

            How many of the FDNY who reported explosions inside the burning WTC buildings claimed that they were DEMOLITION explosIVES and linked the loud bangs to any of the 3 hi-rise collapses? If the FDNY thought that explosive demolitions killed 343 of their colleagues, close friends, and relatives, you can bet your ass that they’d be VERY vocal supporters of your 9/11 “truth movement.” They don’t, and aren’t.
            Your NYT yarn is total BS. The oral histories have been available through NYT .pdf links since 2001, and no court action was required.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            *sigh* There is no point in arguing with a self-proclaimed genius who persistently ignores “facts” that don’t support his agenda. The Oral histories were released in 2005, after a protracted court battle with the City of New York:

            City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today
            By JIM DWYER
            Published: August 12, 2005

            “The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city.”

          • Albury Smith says:

            I was unaware of the FOIA request, but you’re ignoring the fact that the FDNY began compiling the oral histories in October, 2001, the NYT had already obtained some of them through unofficial channels well before 2005, NIST (an imaginary 9/11 “truth movement” perp also accused of withholding them) was also refused access by NYC after
            specifically requesting them, and even the evil and dastardly 9/11 Commission couldn’t get them, for starters. The article also points out possible legal concerns over tainting Moussaoui trial evidence, although FEDERAL prosecutors WANTED them publicly released, confidentiality agreements with the firefighters, and the issues of privacy of the dead and emotional distress to the living, all of which could also have presented legal problems for NYC. If you were Scoppetta or Bloomberg, you’d have taken those concerns very seriously before ordering the public release of victims’ voices on 911 calls, testimonies from union-represented FDNY who might not have wanted their comments made public, etc.

            They’ve now been public knowledge for more than 8 years, and I’ve yet to see even one FDNY first responder’s account of demolition explosives that caused a WTC hi-rise collapse and kill their buddies, so perhaps you could link me to some of them. The NYT was the initial party suing for access to the oral histories, and the NUMEROUS reports of loud bangs in the burning buildings are not even mentioned in their own article discussing possible reasons for the city’s withholding of them. Sally Regenhard’s prominently mentioned in it, and is a leading proponent of hi-rise SAFETY, i.e. construction techniques and firefighting procedures that would reduce the loss of life in fires. Her FDNY son was killed in one of the tower collapses and she’s a very knowledgeable and outspoken activist for 9/11
            truth, yet she isn’t asking for an investigation of your imaginary explosives.
            Gee; go figure…

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Nice try – but you could at least apologize to me and the community who are reading this for throwing out false information as if you knew what you were talking about.

            On a larger scale, your comments reveal that you have an agenda that is other than presenting factual, verified information. This clearly, indisputably identifies you as a shill for the official story who is willing to throw ANYTHING out there, to see what sticks.

            Your comments are nothing but cheap lies, and not worthy of the slightest respect. Goodbye.

          • Albury Smith says:

            I already admitted that I was unaware of the NYT’s FOIA request, so when are you going to admit that you tried to pawn off a straw man, and the FDNY’s NUMEROUS reports of explosions (not DEMOLITION explosIVES) in the fires had nothing at all to do with Bloomberg & the FDNY’s unwillingness to release the 911 and other voice recordings and the FDNY’s oral history transcripts to the public?

            On a larger scale, what’s your agenda behind your deliberately misleading statements? YOU’RE obviously willing to throw ANYTHING out there to see what sticks.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Your false distinction between “explosives” and “demolition explosives” is HYSTERICAL!! 😀

            Do you ever do any real research? You’ve obviously made up your mind, facts be damned. Stop wasting my time. Done.

          • Albury Smith says:

            In most cases the first responders only said they heard explosIONS, and many sources of them – including flashovers, backdrafts, BLEVEs, shorted transformers, debris falling 1000′ or more through express elevator shafts, fuel tanks in vehicles, gas cylinders, etc. – would be expected in major building fires like those. DEMOLITION exploSIVES are heard for miles, so your 9/11 “truth movement” wouldn’t need to quote mine FDNY for the word “explosion”; everyone in Manhattan and well beyond would’ve heard them. The eyewitnesses didn’t specify where in the buildings the sounds came from, didn’t link them to a WTC hi-rise collapse, and aren’t troofers.
            You’re desperate for evidence that doesn’t exist, and I pointed out your obvious straw man. Get over it.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            You love to just make stuff up. In 12 years, no one else has ever suggested that debris falling down an elevator shaft could cause anything to blow up. So ridiculous.

          • Albury Smith says:

            I didn’t say that debris falling down an elevator shaft could cause anything to blow up; I said that it would sound like an explosion at the bottom. I also gave you other sources of the loud bangs that were reported by people close enough to the burning buildings to hear them, and they weren’t explosives either. The word “explosion” was used MANY times on 9/11; some eyewitnesses even described the awful sounds of North Tower jumpers’ bodies hitting the pavement from ~1200′ up as explosions.
            YOU love to make things up, and got busted for lying about the reason the FDNY and Mayor Bloomberg didn’t want to release the oral history transcripts and the 911 and other voice recordings to the NYT for publication.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            Before “Albury Smith” (or whatever his name really is), no one has EVER made any distinction between “explosions” and “demolition explosions” regarding the building collapses at Ground Zero.

            Firefighters speak out about 9/11:

          • Albury Smith says:

            So you never wondered why guys who lost 343 of their buddies in the WTC hi-rise collapses didn’t even mention that the explosions they reported were responsible for the collapses and their deaths?
            Explosives in real C/Ds sound like this:
            and no one in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area needed people a block or two away from Landmark Tower to tell them that explosives were detonated.

          • Stuffinpup says:

            You are making stuff up . . . AGAIN. There are DOZENS of videos on youtube of various firemen, of Barry Jennings and William Rodriguez — both of whom were long-time WTC employees, all speaking of BOMBS. These people know the difference between falling debris and a bomb. Jennings and Rodriguez go into detail about explosions and bombs in the buildings.

            Albury Smith, you are spewing out one BUNK theory after another, that NO ONE ELSE has EVER suggested before. To be fair, that’s all you CAN do when facts and science are not on your side.

            I will AGAIN refer you to the Firemen’s Oral Histories, although I’m now sure you won’t bother to do any real research, because you have made up your mind and locked the door to new, accurate information.

            The problem with you is that you never go check into the facts. You continually pull stuff from a hole in your underwear.

          • Albury Smith says:

            How strange that only Barry Jennings and ol’ Willie heard those demolition explosives; MILLIONS hear them in real C/Ds. Do you know of any really quiet delayed-reaction charges that stink of jet fuel, flatten an elevator door, give people 3rd-degree burns, and collapse buildings ~1200′ higher up and ~142 minutes later, or ones that only blow out a stairwell and then silently collapse one ~7 hours later? Did invisible skyhooks hold up the North Tower and WTC 7 for those long periods of time?
            Willie sued the US government (RICO lawsuit: Rodriguez v. Bush) over the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11, and along with that nonsense he also alleged that a secret high-powered microwave weapon fired from a military C-130 “really” brought down UA 93 over Shanksville. The case was dismissed with prejudice, i.e. show up in court again with that bullshit and you’ll be fined and possibly face jail time and your lawyer (Philip J. Berg, professional crackpot) might even be disbarred.
            Would you like the link to his web site so you can send him a big donation? Here’s the old one:
            but I see that it no longer works. You could just send him the $ or waste it buying some of his useless CDs and other crap, but you’ll have to search for the new link.
            He almost makes Box Boy and David Ray Grifter look honest. Whatta guy.

  10. Dan Plesse says:

    9/11 High Temperature fires at Ground Zero, WTC7 – NIST FOIA sparks HTA fires 2001

    9/11 Engineering Students Discuss WTC Collapse Explosions

    All Members of congress are Corrupt, hijacked and must sign an written oath to Israel

    • Albury Smith says:

      You should post a copy of this alleged “written oath to Israel,” Dan, instead of just sharing the paranoid rantings of a former congresswoman. If high temperatures in debris fires are evidence to you of controlled demolition, please list some of the explosives or incendiaries that generate heat for more than ~5 minutes. Recorded temperatures of <1400F are considered pretty common for fires of that nature:
      I didn't notice any mention of engineering studies by your alleged students, but looking at burning and collapsing hi-rises for a few minutes doesn't qualify as one.

      • Dan Plesse says:

        9/11 Explosions caused Bone Fractures version 2.01

        Evidence of controlled cutting: for controlled demo

        Head to the NYPD Museum for more high temperature fire evidence.i.e melted concrete, hand guns trapped in concrete. or google it!

        1400 and >1800 you got your greater sign wrong!

        Discussion included “while in Engineering class” check link inside about under video.

        Above Top Secret 20 MB SCAN of 9/11

        • Albury Smith says:

          If you’ve discovered something that collapses huge buildings and then produces intense heat for months, our energy problems are as good as solved. If the eyewitnesses with bone fractures had heard demolition explosives, it’s unlikely that they’d have been around to tell us about it.

      • Dan Plesse says:

        X-rated 9/11 Architects and engineers Cover up

        If the Truthers think its over the top – it must be good!

        • Albury Smith says:

          Harrit, et al. could find “nanothermite” in a ham sandwich using the methodology described in their pay-to-publish Bentham fiasco, which concluded that common stuff “reminded” them of it while they provided no exemplars of anything for comparison. At ~1:30 here, he tells an Russia Today interviewer that “a hundred tons” or more of conventional high explosives were used in addition to what they were reminded of:

          Ever heard a fragmentation grenade go off? They contain ~8 ounces of conventional high explosive. I wouldn’t buy a used car from him or his colleagues.

  11. dmhennen says:

    good work, but 90% of the american people, still see the world through blinders.

  12. Lee Eisenstein says:


  13. Albury Smith says:

    It’s very easy to prove. Just get some W14 X 730s (14WF730s) like the 11 used as columns in WTC 7’s core and the ones also used for some of the columns in both towers’ cores, stand them up, and demonstrate the secret explosive cutting of their 4.91″ flanges and 3.07″ webs, on video with sound. Even without the continuous steel plates welded across their flanges (or between them) in the lower levels of WTC 7, which added ~50% more cross sectional area and weight per foot, W14 X 730s weigh 730# per lineal foot and have 215 square-inch cross sections.
    If Richard Gage and his “1700 experts” were ever forced to do it, we’d never hear another peep out of them.
    note: the ~$4.68 billion total in damages that Silverstein collected from 12 different insurance companies fell billions short of his lost cash flow for years, and his mandatory rebuilding costs. Lloyd’s, Swiss Re, Zurich Financial, and Copenhagen Re were 4 of the companies which paid Silverstein Properties the multi-billion dollar settlement, and not one of them or the other 8 companies ever questioned why the buildings collapsed. Don’t they care as much as the 9/11 “truth movement,” or do they just like losing money?


      I would study this paper with an open mind…but I know you will not Albury.
      “living is easy with eyes closed, mistunderstanding all you see” John Lennon/Strawberry Fields

      • Albury Smith says:

        What paper should I study? All I saw was a letter from someone regurgitating nonsense from Gage and Griffin.

        • ColinB says:

          There were 47 vertical steel heat treated columns in each core of the WTC buildings. Each of them 1200mm x 385mm, 100mm thick at base and thinning to 30mm at top, (to allow for wind} Bolted together. YET, they just disintegrated when the the buildings ‘fell’. You are living in ‘I don’t want to know the truth’world.

          • Albury Smith says:

            Actually, I DO want to know the truth. Let’s see how explosives secretly cut “vertical steel heat treated” W14 X 730 columns – on video with sound. No columns “disintegrated” when any of the WTC buildings collapsed, but try that with explosives, incendiaries, nukes, space beams, or whatever else you can dream up.

          • Dan Plesse says:

            Albury bombs don’t cut steel. The requirements are many but the top two are: 1. cutting 2. movement. You got to get the buildings moving.

            9/11 seismology earthquake update

            9/11 NEW Witness to explosions, Flight 11 witness, Flight 175 photo, Mossad 9-11 Photo 2012

            Remember the Truth Movement will only get you 50% of the Truth, the rest you have to find yourself. Just get yourself a FOIA.

          • Albury Smith says:

            The 9/11 “truth movement” will get you about 0% of the truth, as you’ve amply demonstrated here. MD80s and DC9s don’t look anything at all like 767s, and the one in your video was nowhere near the WTC on 9/11. While you’re quote mining eyewitness statements for the word “explosion,” please feel free to narrow it down to the ones who claimed they heard demolition explosives and connected the sounds to any hi-rise collapse. Since many were FDNY, count the signatories to Erik Lawyer’s petition who even CLAIM to be FDNY:
            Guess they don’t care as much as you do about the deaths of 300+ of their colleagues, huh?

          • johnnywhittles says:

            Albury the more you talk the more you make the 911 truthers look extremely intelligent. Not that they aren’t intelligent to begin with. But it’s your stupidity that actually makes me think they’re onto something. Without idiots like you, people like me would never have come around.

          • Albury Smith says:

            Are you what’s left of the 9/11 “truth movement”?

    • Edgey Reason says:

      Wow, Albury Smith, you’re still at it? You know what the definition of insanity is, don’t you? So now you know better than even a veteran research professor? The gull of this man, people, witness it!

      Did you ever get around to starting that website? I searched and couldn’t find it. Still blogging and commenting out of your mom’s basement I see. Shame. I had such high hopes for you. Exactly how many hours of your life have you wasted debating strangers on this subject anyway?

      I do, however, commend your tenacity. It’s quite amazing that you still show up to the circus when ever “9/11 Truth” articles appear. Sure wish I could buy you a beer and pick your brain for an hour or two.

      Oh, and to those of you new to the likes of Albury Smith, he’s not to be messed with when it comes to 9/11 Truth. He’s the most ardent of researches on debunking that I’ve ever witnessed. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of posts from this guy, and he’s covered every angle – so don’t waste your time or keystrokes…it ain’t worth it.

      Best wishes, Albury. Keep up the “good” work. LOL!

      • Albury Smith says:

        I merely suggested to the veteran research professor and his sycophants here a very simple and straightforward way to support the secret explosive demolition hypothesis. It appears that I found a venue where I won’t be banned for having such “gull,” so it’s obviously not moderated by someone from your 9/11 “truth movement.”

  14. ColinB says:

    Pretty much as the Professor says. And quite honestly that is easier to prove, because of available evidence, than for the conspiracists to disprove.


Leave a Comment

Comment Policy