Tag Archives: Building 7

The tilting south tower gives it away


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance – Albert Einstein
November 26, 2010

By Craig McKee

People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn’t possible.
There are so many examples: the too-small hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center towers that came down; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both of the twin towers; and that they couldn’t have been destroyed so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There’s another aspect to the destruction of the twin towers that doesn’t get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the destruction of the South Tower started at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Continue reading →

‘Building What?’ campaign is brilliant strategy for 9/11 Truth movement


November 22, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s an inspired move. Take a single event from 9/11 and ask for a local investigation to determine how it happened. In this case, the goal is to have officials in New York City launch an investigation into why World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.
The smaller scope makes it more likely to succeed, and the fact that New Yorkers are asking their city to investigate leaves the federal government out of it – for now, anyway. And it’s clear that other so-called investigations into this event have shed no light on how this 47-storey building came straight down at near free fall speed (6.5 seconds) when it wasn’t even hit by a plane.
The campaign, called Building What?, was organized by families of people who died in the Sept. 11 attacks. It is co-sponsored by NYC Coalition for Accountability Now and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization that includes more than 1,200 members. AE911Truth is devoted to the dissemination of scientific evidence about what happened on 9/11. Their stated goal is a truly Continue reading →

Official 9/11 story depends on a 'perfect storm' of blunders

Somehow no fighters were able to intercept any of the four hijacked planes.

November 20, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s a very tempting notion for a lot of people. Incompetence. Confusion. Bad luck.
For people who can’t bring themselves to believe that their own government would murder 3,000 people, it’s comforting instead to chalk up the attacks of 9/11 to a series of unfortunate mistakes. The Bush administration did not admit that catastrophic errors were made, but if 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, there’s no other explanation.
Somehow the idea that the terrorists were too fiendishly brilliant for anyone to be able to stop them just doesn’t cut it, even for “official story” believers. Claims by George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld that no one could have anticipated hijacked planes being flown into buildings have been discredited. We know for a fact that war games going on that very morning simulated this very scenario.
So that leaves people who don’t believe in official 9/11 complicity on the part of the government to settle on the idea that the country’s defences broke down inexplicably. It’s not a pretty theory if you believe in your government, but it has to do. The alternative, that the Bush administration planned the attacks, is unthinkable for many.
So how can someone make the case that it was a string of honest mistakes that allowed the attacks to succeed? Basically the scenario goes like this:

  • Law enforcement agencies like the FBI had their eyes on some of the future hijackers long before 9/11 but didn’t follow up or somehow lost track of them.
  • Airport security on 9/11 singled out the hijackers for additional screening but failed to Continue reading →

Are we all hard-wired not to question 9/11 official story?


I’m not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true or involve dentists. – Michael Moore

November 11, 2010

By Craig McKee

The human brain is a fascinating thing. It controls everything we perceive. It is the vehicle through which all information passes, the filter through which all external events are processed. We can use it to search for the truth, but it can also stop us from looking.
We believe that any opinion we might have is based simply on our understanding of the facts. Sure we all have our biases, but we’re aware of them, right?
Not necessarily. We may be aware of the obvious ones, but the subtle ways we resist facts presented to us often slip under the radar. The things that motivate us to defend what we Continue reading →

‘Box cutter’ nuts and their wild theories: a gem of 9/11 satire


I came across this wickedly dry bit of conspiracy analysis from 2003 recently and really enjoyed it. Since the author offered it freely for reproduction (with credit given) I thought it would be worth including in this blog. Sadly, the author passed away from cancer earlier this year. He was just 51.
His piece goes to show that when the government and media offer an explanation of an event like 9/11, their story is never looked at as a theory. But it’s worth turning the tables occasionally – Craig McKee
November 7, 2010

Debunking conspiracy theorists: Paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11 distract from the real issues

By Gerard Holmgren (Copyright Gerard Holmgren, Jan. 9, 2003)

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will ususally be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. “The CIA killed Hendrix” ” The Pope had John Lennon murdered “, “Hitler was half Werewolf”, “Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone” etc,etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So it’s hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is – sadly – a small but Continue reading →

More impossible 9/11 ‘eyewitness’ accounts: Renaud and McIntyre


November 5, 2010

By Craig McKee

One of the most bizarre and unbelievable accounts given by anyone with TV network connections on Sept. 11, 2001 was that of Theresa Renaud, described as the wife of CBS Early Show producer Jack Renaud.
Her account is available on the Internet and was presented in the film September Clues, which alleges that video we saw on and after Sept. 11 was tampered with to deceive the public.
Renaud was recounting live on CBS how she had been at her window and had heard the North Tower explosion. While telling the story, she sees the second alleged impact. Her account of that, live, was very revealing.
Before that second impact, she explained to host Bryant Gumbel that her office building in Chelsea looked “directly on to” the towers (even though it was several miles north). She described how her building was the tallest in the area, giving her a good view of the World Trade Center.
Renaud described the first impact this way: “I would say that approximately 10 minutes ago there was a major explosion from, probably it looks like from the 80th floor, it looks like it’s affected probably four to eight floors, major flames are coming out of the, let’s see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.”
Gumbel then asks her if she heard the explosion. She continues: “Oh yes, yes we did as a matter of fact, in fact we did hear because I was standing there pretty much standing looking out the window. I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact.” Continue reading →

Why did some media personalities lie about what they saw on 9/11?


November 3, 2010

By Craig McKee

One of the most disturbing aspects of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 is the strange and sometimes suspicious behavior of the media.
We have seen journalists who reversed their stories, stories that were reported on 9/11 but never after that, and huge questions that were never even asked by the media. And we have witnessed what can only be seen as intentional deception on the part of some media professionals or those connected to the media.
As the attacks were unfolding that morning, there was an apparent army of TV network executives and news staff who just happened to be near the World Trade Center or the Pentagon and were ready to report on what was going on within Continue reading →

The clearer we thought we saw 9/11, the easier we were to fool


October 31, 2010

By Craig McKee

You’d have to think it would be just about impossible to deceive the world about a catastrophic event like 9/11 because everything happened in broad daylight in front of thousands of people wouldn’t you?
But maybe it’s just the opposite. Maybe it’s the fact that thousands saw it in person and millions watched it over and over on TV that has made it so easy for us to be fooled. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it, as Hitler said.
Most of us are desperate to believe what we’re told. We think that if we question everything we see and hear, then we’ll never know what’s real and what’s not. This fact is taken advantage of by Continue reading →

Molten metal under WTC rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel


October 24, 2010

By Craig McKee

When they can’t explain it, they do the next best thing.
They ignore it.
The U.S. government, the 9/11 Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA and the mainstream media all do the same thing.  When they can’t explain something that contradicts the official version of events on 9/11, they simply pretend the questions don’t exist.
Among the most crucial examples of this are the large pools of molten metal found under the rubble of the two twin towers of the World Trade Center and Building 7. The molten metal burned under the rubble for weeks, with the final fires not being extinguished until December of 2001, three months after the disaster.
The official story can’t explain this; it doesn’t even try. That’s because the molten metal points to a controlled demolition – explosive charges combined with a material that causes a chemical Continue reading →

Think plausible conspiracy theories are easy to invent? Give it a try

October 7, 2010

By Craig McKee

So you think there’s a case for the official 9/11 story, eh? The conspiracy theorists are the kooks, and all the evidence supports what Bush and the media have been telling us all along.
If you think there is a case to be made for the government’s version of a “conspiracy theory” then I invite you to make it. Tell us how you know it happened just as the 9/11 Commission says. How do you know, other than because TV said so?
I can make this challenge very confidently because I know what’ll happen. If you’re open-minded, you’ll realize there is precious little to back up the official story. Each element of it can be dismantled relatively easily. If you’re not, you’ll just brush off anything that challenges you.
I’ve heard the sceptics say that you can take any event and make it seem like a conspiracy if you want. All you have to do is to twist a few facts and suppositions around and you can make it seem like a conspiracy took place. Continue reading →