A woman who claims she was stationed at Fort Meade on September 11, 2001, has given an explosive interview about how she personally heard military commanders make the decision to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11.

A person using the pseudonym Elizabeth Nelson told The Project Camelot website that she personally heard officials agree on the order to shoot down Flight 93. The decision was apparently made because the plane was flying in a no-fly zone near to Camp David and heading toward Site R, a military facility in known as the “backup Pentagon”.

Nelson stresses that at no time was there any talk of “hijackers,” and the plane was shot down purely because communication had been lost and standard operating procedure mandated that the plane be intercepted and destroyed.

Because the woman refuses to provide her real name, the authenticity of her story is very much up for debate, but in a 40 minute MP3 recording ( click here to listen) of the interview, she relates what she witnessed in as sincere and genuine a way as one could expect. This individual has seemingly little to gain from making up such a story, unless it’s part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Nelson says that she was stationed at at Fort Meade under the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center Hospital and was training as a radiologic technologist having finished basic training three weeks prior. On 9/11, her rank was Private First Class.

Nelson relates how 9/11 started as a routine day before a higher ranked soldier suddenly emerged from another room and exclaimed, “Holy shit! I just saw a plane crash into one of the Twin Towers.”

Nelson and her colleagues then gathered around the TV in the hospital lobby before they saw the second plane hit the tower. Despite the fact that the first plane strike was not broadcast on live television, Nelson was adamant that the soldier was referring to the first plane when he first spoke. Nelson says that when she first saw the live TV pictures, only one tower was on fire, so the soldier could not have been referring to a replay of the second hit. In the interview, Nelson speculates that the first hit could have been broadcast on an internal military channel. President Bush once famously claimed that he had seen the first plane hit and thought that it was a case of pilot error, despite there being no live TV footage of the first plane strike.

While the majority of the personnel on the base scrambled to protect the facility as part of standard operating procedure, Nelson and a colleague were offered up by their First Sergeant to act as assistants to the Commander of the Base.

“All the other departments of soldiers - the nursing department, the clerical, administrational department - everybody sent their base soldiers there and I didn’t see them anymore. So basically the hospital was not fully active at that point. Everything was on hold,” said Nelson, adding, “And so I remember the room that they took us into. And they told us that we were in charge of, you know, getting coffees, any kind of snacks from the cafeteria - not cafeteria, like from the snack machines or from the place where you can get little snacks - in charge of making photocopies because she and I had the access codes for the rooms, to get in there.”

Nelson and her colleague were sat at the far end of the room and told to face the wall as the meeting of top officials on the base commenced.

“And there was probably six or seven men around this very large table, just like you would see in a big office somewhere. And they had this funny phone. It was like a conference-call phone. And I remember them sitting there and they were talking through this phone. And it seemed to me that they were talking to one or two other places,” said Nelson, adding that she suspected the men were in contact with the West Point military base an hour north of New York City.

The men were trying to ascertain what was going on and quickly expressed concern about Camp David and “Site R” and stating words to the effect of, “Protocol is that this is a no-fly zone. We have to take this plane down. Yes, it’s a passenger plane. It needs to be taken down. It’s a no-fly zone.”

According to Wikipedia, Site R, otherwise known as The Raven Rock Mountain Complex (RRMC) or the Underground Pentagon, is a United States government facility on Raven Rock, a mountain in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. The facility houses the ANMCC (Alternate National Military Command Center), JSSC (Joint Staff Support Center), OSD/DHS (Office of the Secretary of Defense/Department of Homeland Security), and the 114th Signal Battalion. RRMC also houses the emergency operations centers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

“I didn’t hear a thing about hijackers,” states Nelson, “We just heard that this plane was flying in a no-fly zone and they couldn’t make contact with the plane, or something like this. There was no communication. Protocol says it has to be taken out. And so I was in this room when the decision was mutually made by the people talking on the phone in the room that I was in, to shoot this plane down.”

“It didn’t feel like anybody knew that there was anything with terrorists,” added Nelson, saying that the officers mentioned the attack on the twin towers but only in the context that they didn’t know where Flight 93 was heading. She got the impression that they were genuinely unaware of the wider 9/11 plot, as would be expected in a compartmentalized structure, and that they were simply following military protocol.

Nelson recalls how she later felt revulsion after she saw news reports about how Flight 93 had supposedly been taken down by brave passengers.

“I remember the distinct feeling inside of me of when I saw on the news that there was this story that there were terrorists on this plane, and that the people overtook the pilot and crashed the plane, - I mean, overtook the terrorists and crashed the plane themselves. And how this was leaking out as these people being heroes,” she states.

“And I remember the extreme moral frustration inside of me, of feeling: But that’s not true! That’s not true at all! We shot this down. And a huge conflict inside of me, of knowing that the world is made to believe this story that’s not true.”

Nelson subsequently felt frustrated when anyone talked about the manufactured myth of the Flight 93 heroes.

“I also remember the confronting feeling when I would be around … because there were civilians that worked in the hospital as well. And then when they would talk about the heroes and these things, the conflict that I had inside of myself was wanting to bust out and say: That’s not true!,” she states.

“They didn’t crash the plane. If they would have crashed it, there would have been a skeleton of the plane. There was no… Nothing. It was blown up.”

Nelson speculated that the errant aircraft could have been originally heading for New York City (Building 7?) before the passengers retook control of the aircraft and started aimlessly flying it elsewhere.

“The only thing I can think is if the third plane was also intended for somewhere in the city [New York City] as well, and that the people actually did take over the hijackers and divert the plane so that the plane ended up flying aimlessly someplace else. And of course the people don’t know how to talk over the radio or any of these things. And that’s maybe something that happened,” she states.

The biggest argument against Nelson’s claims is the hard to accept notion that she and another Private were allowed to sit within earshot of top military commanders making monumental decisions about national security. If the commanders had needed people to make photocopies of documents and bring snacks and drinks as Nelson describes, then why not just have them on call in a different room? One would expect that a military complex have sophisticated communication connections that would have easily facilitated such a scenario.

Then again, if all the other active duty personnel were busy defending the base it could be argued that in the midst of the chaos, Nelson and her colleague were called upon.

Whether or not Nelson’s story is true, the fact that Flight 93 was shot down is one of the most glaring holes in the official 9/11 story.

Footage of the crash site showed barely any debris whatsoever. Compare this to any other plane crash in history and the contrast is astounding.

The debris field of Flight 93 was eight miles wide - investigators found a second debris field three miles away from the main crash site at Indian Lake, and a third debris field in New Baltimore, eight miles away. This is entirely consistent with the plane having been shot down.

Several eyewitnesses described hearing explosions before Flight 93 crashed and others said they heard missiles.

The Flight93Crash website has a compilation of eyewitness reports all attesting to the fact that the plane was shot down.

Donald Rumsfeld himself said that Flight 93 was “shot down” in an apparent slip of the tongue on December 24, 2004.

AP | March 26, 2009

NEW YORK — The Freedom Tower is out. One World Trade Center is in.

The agency that owns ground zero confirmed Thursday that the signature skyscraper replacing the towers destroyed on Sept. 11 will be more commonly known as One World Trade Center.

The building under construction at the site was named the Freedom Tower in the first ground zero master plan. Officials at the time said the tallest, most symbolic of five planned towers at the site would demonstrate the country’s triumph over terrorism.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey chairman Anthony Coscia says the agency refers to the building as One World Trade Center. He says it’s the building’s legal name and “the one that’s easiest for people to identify with.”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 20, 2008

The BBC is set to launch another savage smear attack on the 9/11 truth movement with two documentaries about the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings that attempt to debunk evidence of government complicity and smear doubters of the official story as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and crop circle fanatics.

	The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Having taken its rightful place alongside Popular Mechanics and The History Channel as one of the 21st century’s most plentiful peddlers of yellow journalism with their first 9/11 hit piece last year, “Auntie Beeb” is set to have another crack at the whip on July 6th when it airs a documentary about the collapse of WTC Building 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that imploded into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane, called The Third Tower.

The preview clip for the show claims that the program will offer the solution to the “final mystery of 9/11,” presumably self-satisfied that the BBC’s previous woeful effort to debunk 9/11 truth dismissed the mountains of other contradictions and outright falsehoods of the official story.

Judging from the end of the clip, it seems as if the BBC is ready to violate the fundamental laws of physics and proclaim that fire caused the steel-framed building to collapse, an unprecedented event in history.

The making of the show was undoubtedly motivated by the BBC themselves having been shamed last year by footage that emerged of them reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it had happened, a revelation that prompted a series of blundering PR gaffes on behalf of the corporation and seemingly a vendetta against 9/11 truthers who bombarded the company with bad publicity at the time.

The BBC’s flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles’ heel of the official conspiracy theory.

The new hit piece features an interview with 9/11 shill extraordinaire and former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the White House Richard Clarke, who denies a controlled demolition took down Building 7.

The BBC’s first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.

The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.

During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.

Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.

In pursuing such dirty smear tactics once again, the BBC has proven itself to be not only biased and agenda-driven, but the producers of the show have displayed their complete ineptness in judging who to interview for the documentary.

“The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted,” writes producer Mike Rudin. “Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC.”

Oh diddums, now we wouldn’t want to question whether the authorities should be trusted now would we Mike? Because we know governments never lie, have never engaged in any conspiracies and always have the interests of the people at heart.

The BBC thinks it is in the “public interest” and a “legitimate task” to run defense for this criminal Blair-Brown government that has already aided in the slaughter of over 600,000 innocent people in Iraq based on their own conspiracy theories about weapons of mass destruction, by smearing anyone that questions the official story behind 7/7.

This is a damning indictment of how the BBC views itself and corporate media today as a whole - not as an independent media outlet tasked with putting politicians’ feet to the fire, muckraking, and asking hard questions - but acting as a Ministry of Truth to put a lid on the shocking facts behind 7/7 and backing up a Labour government that has refused all along to allow a proper investigation into the bombings come hell or high water.

“Scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves,” as Rudin calls it is merely newspeak for “taking the piss out of mentally unstable Neo-Nazis and then claiming they represent conspiracy theorists.”

The BBC masquerades as some kind of credible arbiter of “case closed” truth, yet the corporation is almost universally loathed in the United Kingdom because Britons are forced to fund its existence through a TV license tax and in return the BBC provides them with utter garbage on a regular basis.

The BBC’s latest serving of yellow journalism is likely to be little improvement.

We invite readers to leave a comment on producer Mike Rudin’s blog so as to give him the opportunity to write a new blog expressing his phony outrage to hostile put-downs of his career in yellow journalism.

George Washington
OpEd News
May 5, 2008

While many people question the government’s conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government’s answer to the following questions is correct:

(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?

(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings become the first modern steel-frame high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many indications normally associated with controlled demolition?

At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?

Well, actually:

• Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together

• The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day, the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military spokespeople about what severley tortured, crazy people supposedly said

• NIST admits “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

• FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only “a low probability of occurring”

It is not very reassuring when the professional whitewashers tasked with defending the government’s version of what happened on 9/11 themselves willing to swear to that version.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/

George Washington George Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.

We Are Change UK Question former BBC Report Phil Hayton– who is ‘amazed’ that such a ’significant’ event has no official explanation

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com | April 25, 2008

Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance.

Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.

“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers.

Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”

“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.

We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ‘cock-up.’

“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded.

On a previous occasion, We Are Change UK reporters contacted Jane Standley by phone about the telling incident. Standley, unlike Hayton, was not surprised by the revelation, but became uncomfortable and hurriedly ended the conversation, only commenting that she had been “harassed” about the situation already.

Surely, it is clear that neither Standley nor Hayton were ‘in on a conspiracy’– rather they were used and fed information. However, Hayton seems willing to admit it while Standley has thus far been unable to answer for the suspicious incident ahead of the unexplained collapse.

The suspicion surrounding early media reporting of WTC7’s collapse– which Aaron Brown of CNN also announced– only exacerbates the demolition apparent that many police, fire fighters and other emergency workers were told about in advance and which many other news anchors described as being like a ‘deliberately destroyed’ building.

Further, WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein said that the building was “pulled” and rescue worker Kevin McPadden has reported hearing a countdown to Building 7’s demolition.

Iranian President does not represent the truth movement, obsession with his idiocy only proves debunkers are frightened to take on real experts

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet | April 17, 2008

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bumbling comments about 9/11, in which he crudely questioned the official story by referring to the death toll, play right into the establishment media and the Neo-Cons’ hands and give them an ample opportunity to debunk the entire truth movement - don’t think for a minute they won’t seize the chance.

“Four or five years ago a suspect event took place in New York,” President Ahmadinejad said.

“A building collapsed and they said 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names,” he said in a speech in the holy city of Qom.

People like BBC reporter Greg Palast have long suspected that Ahmadinejad is actually a stooge who is in bed with the Neo-Cons, and his latest buffoonery only lends credence to that summation.

First of all, Ahmadinejad sets the scene by displaying his ignorance of when 9/11 even happened, it was nearly seven years ago, not “four or five”.

Since Ahmadinejad has also repeatedly questioned the scale of the Holocaust, this gives debunkers a perfect opportunity to link 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, a pathetic smear that they have always longed to anchor to some actual evidence, since none whatsoever exists.

Naturally, when a French actress says something about 9/11 or the fool Ahmadinejad opens his mouth, the establishment media afford it lavish attention for days on end, but when hundreds of scholars, professors, architects and scientists go public, the silence is deafening.

That’s because the media chooses its targets - they only give attention to someone who they can easily debunk.

The U.S. government wasted no time in posturing feigned incredulity yesterday when they reacted to the comments.

“I am not sure what you say about a statement like that. It leaves one speechless,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

“It is just misguided, misinformed rhetoric,” McCormack said.

Ahmadinejad’s bizarre doubting of the official death toll, something which is not shared by the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, is a perfect straw man argument that the establishment can use to shoot down and then tar the rest of the truth movement with the same brush.

So to all the debunkers out there - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not represent the 9/11 truth movement - and your obsession with prevaricating on his comments only proves that you are frightened to go head to head with credible figures who are asking real questions about the official story - people like Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga.

Thank you for contributing to support the 9/11 Responders Trip to Captiol Hill on Tuesday. As you know, it will take close to $16,000 to hold this trip. We have raised close to $13,000 and need just $3,000 to fully fund this trip.

I know many of you have already contributed, but if you can make another contribution of $10, $25, or $50, it would help us tremendously.

Donations

100% of the operating income for the FealGood Foundation is provided by undesignated contributions.  You can help improve the lives of 9/11 first responders and their families by supporting the FealGood Foundation  and making your tax deductible gift today.

Donations are accepted via Paypal (please direct payments to feal13@aol.com) or by sending a Personal Check to the mailing address listed below.

Credit Cards (Visa/Mastercard/Discover) can be accepted via phone only at (631) 724-3320.

FealGood Foundation

144 Shenandoah Blvd
Nesconset, New York  11767

9/11 First Responders and We Are Change ally David Miller is in the hospital again this time his doctor have given him mere weeks to live. Our prayers go out to David, but it is not enough. With the excitement of the Ron Paul Revolution and the news of more and more citizens waking up-we cannot forget our friends, the 9/11 First Responders. To many of us, these men and women are “Patriots” or “Heroes”, but to their families and friends, they are David, Charlie, Mike, Lauren, John and so many others, condemned to death because of the lies of Christine Todd Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, the media, and our government. These brothers and sisters are dying, fighting an uphill battle, often with little hope of recovery. We, the healthy, cannot remain silent going about our business while the lives of these men and women wither away in their final days with cancers and other terminal illnesses. We the healthy must stand up for these members of our community who are too ill to stand up for themselves. David doesn’t want our pity, he wants us to–at the very least–speak out on behalf of the 9/11 Community: to demand health care and aid, and just and fair treatment.

David Miller is a single case. Out there are thousands like him, with tens of thousands undiagnosed. Again, We ask: What can we–the able bodied citizens–do to help? If we can raise $400,000 for a blimp, we should be able to raise money–and awareness–on behalf of the 9/11 Community. It is their stories that fuel our movement, the ones to bear the cross of the greatest crime in American History. Their stories must be heard–and taken to hear–by each and every one of us. David, we hear you, brother. Hang tough. Our hearts and minds are with you.

Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
February 5, 2008Now that Willie Nelson has told the world via the Alex Jones Show his opinion of what really happened on September 11, 2001 — there is no way simple jet fuel fires brought down the towers and indeed the collapse looked for all the world like a carefully executed demolition — folks suffering from an allergic reaction to reality are coming out of the woodwork in condemnation, albeit with trepidation as it is risky to attack an American icon and get away unscathed.

As an example, consider the following blogger on the KXMC website:

“He’s one of my favorite artists. His songs are always on my iPod playlist, but now I’m not sure I’m going to be able to enjoy his music the way I once did after listening to this interview with Ron Paul buddy Alex Jones,” rants the nameless blogger. “As a conservative, I’m used to having to overlook the politics of the artists I like. Entertainers tend to be very liberal. It’s a fact of life that I’ve learned to deal with. But trutherism is more than just disagreeing on the war or domestic policy. Trutherism is equivalent to holocaust denial in my book… Shame on you, Willie.”

Of course, this guy is not a “conservative,” he is a neocon, but then the neocons hijacked the title years ago. It is also a squalid and disingenuous neocon tactic to claim “trutherism” is akin to Holocaust denial, never mind there is not a shimmering iota of likeness between the two. It is just another neocon cheap trick, a shabby effort to get the clueless and politically infantile to react in emotional fashion to the fact distant Muslim cave dwellers — expensively tailored by the CIA and no shortage of fanatics in Pakistan — were unable to change the laws of physics. Such brain death and tawdry emotionalism stink to high heaven, but without such despicable theatrics the murderous neocon plan to decimate the Muslim and Arab Middle East would fall in on itself like a house of cards in a mild breeze.

No doubt we should expect more of this desperate behavior in the days ahead, now that the Associated Press and Fox News have reported Willie’s interview with Alex Jones. “On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked planes, crashing them into each of the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field,” the Associated Press is wont to tell us, once again fronting the official fairy tale version of events, minus absolutely any credible evidence or substantial proof that 19 hijackers were any where near those planes on September 11.

If the supposed hijackers were near anything, it was the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama, and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, a fact reported by none other than Newsweek on September 15, 2001 — an uncomfortable fact that has since found its way to the memory hole.

In Bushzarro world, repeating harebrained fables passes for objective journalism, same as rehashed Trotskyism passes for Reagan conservatism.

Problem is, for the neocons, it no longer works, even with preposterous allusions to the Holocaust attached.

Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation” proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST’s own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

“NIST’S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls “collapse initiation” — the loss of several floors’ vertical support,” writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for “collapse initiation”–the failure of a few floors.”

“But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don’t. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment–a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways–the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.”

“Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST’s ridiculous “initiation” scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon,” concludes Barrett.

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building’s collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST’s conclusions were “questionable”, that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

&nbsp