Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W. people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.


The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]

And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.


National Security Notice via Washington's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Friday, July 24, 2015

NIST Video Deceit

by Miragememories » Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:00 pm

Did the NIST, after many years of intensive investigation, with the benefit of all its resources and major funding, perform due diligence in their pursuit of answering the question;

After combining their years of engineering research with an analysis the day’s events, was the NIST honest or deceitful in the completeness of their final determinations?

The NIST, through their spokesperson, lead investigator, Shyam Sundar, at a 2008 press conference announcing the conclusion of the WTC 7 investigation, uncompromisingly stated that; “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery”, and that the NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.”

Dr. Sundar, did admit that his organization had a very difficult time finding an engineering hypothesis to explain what occurred at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 to WTC 7.

Given the length of the investigation, the wealth of human resources committed to it, and the degree of difficulty understanding the mechanism behind the total structural failure of WTC 7, it is reasonable to expect that all data pertaining to the building’s structural status for its last remaining hour, would be subject to the most intensive, careful, and methodical engineering scrutiny.

The published evidence shows that the NIST’s primary focus was directed at finding support for their column 79 buckling hypothesis, while dispelling contradictory evidence as lacking sufficient credibility to warrant further investigation.

Case in point, involves the observed activity from northwest face windows on the 13th floor of WTC 7 just prior to its complete collapse.

The NIST hypothesis is anchored in the northeast, where they believe column 79 at the 13th floor lost its lateral support, buckled, and revealed its failure through the visible collapse of the east penthouse.

In passing, the NIST in their final report acknowledged some unexplained activity occurring at the other end of WTC 7 saying that; “Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.

Without any additional data available, this appeared to be a fair assessment. The NIST, using the limited video and photo evidence they had cataloged, determined that there was no visual data to provide an explanation for this “unusual behaviour”.

But was there really only limited video available?

Going over the video evidence provided by the NIST through FOIA, there is good reason to question the veracity of the NIST claim.

A logical place to investigate the NIST contention is to carefully examine the video in question, where “a jet of flames was pushed” from 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face, well away from the east side column 79 location.

Screen captures from the NIST FOIA video. The left frame was captured a few video frames prior to the right frame.

The NIST kept track of all their video data records a large database.

Video records sent to the NIST were cataloged and identified in this database which was used by researchers to locate and analyze clips of interest.

According to their database records, the video that contained the “jet of flames” that occurred close to the time of WTC7’s collapse, was identified as belonging to CBS-Net Dub5.

The NIST cataloger, as shown from their notes, not only observed the “jet of flames”, but also noted a visible “puff of smoke” partially obscured by scan lines created when the original playback tape was deliberately fast-forwarded while it was being copied.


Given the importance of any dramatic data appearing close to the collapse time of WTC 7, it is very odd that the NIST investigators paid so little heed to the “noted” smoke plume, or the fact that it was deliberately obscured by intentional fast forwarding. All they noted was the “jet of flames”, which were also initially obscured by fast forwarding.

Later in the video recording, the sudden jet of flames could not be ignored when they appeared clearly after the person ‘directing’ the NIST copy decided to replay that portion at normal speed.


But that’s not all.

The fast forwarding obscures an even more significant event.

Behind the obscuring horizontal lines induced by fast forwarding, a series of explosive plumes can be seen coming from the direction of the window that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”. Additionally, a white cloud forms near the NW corner and proceeds easterly.


This should have aroused great interest on the part of researchers, but without the benefit of a clean unobscured video copy, they possibly decided further investigation was pointless.

Had the NIST investigators shown more determination, they would have discovered that there was indeed a clean HQ copy of the very same video, without the intentional image obscuration.

The NIST cataloged the video source as CBS, but it appears that CBS licensed its use from the rights holder, FOX. FOX through their subsidiary company, ITN, offer a clean preview copy in flash video format (.flv). A 5-year license for an HQ copy is available at a price determined by the purchaser’s intended usage.

Had the NIST or FEMA officially communicated their interest in the video more earnestly they would have easily discovered the availability of this HQ version.

Given the amount of wandering fire that was observed in WTC 7 on 9/11, it could easily be said that one more was hardly worthy of special attention.

But considering the location and timing, in conjunction with the fact that the most plausible explanation for the implosive collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, this event takes on greater significance.

A controlled demolition by implosion would require that the lower core of WTC 7 be blown out through the intensive use of conventional RDX-like explosives, possibly in the wake of a steel structure-weakening pre-collapse mechanism, like nano-thermite.

Studying the clean copy of the video that the NIST never investigated, several things can be observed;

With difficulty (due to the poor quality of the free public ‘flash video’ preview), a very rapid series of west-to-east dark bursts can be seen behind windows on the 13th floor, just prior to the plumes erupting from previously fire-broken windows. (It is necessary to obtain the full quality original that FOX controls in order to properly see this activity.)

The explosive dark plumes appeared to erupt from the same 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face of WTC 7.


And a lower, rapidly expanding, large white cloud moves east from the west end of the north face of WTC 7.


According to the NIST, this is what followed shortly after these events.

“Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.


The original, X11090122 97672, reference recording, used for this research is only available in preview quality LQ (HQ (high quality) for purchasers), at ... X11090122/
Clip #20

The NIST FOIA release; is available as International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA Release_25, Folder: 42A0122 - G25D33

Tuesday, July 14, 2015 Interview with Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole

Published on Jul 14, 2015
JM Talboo

Jonathan Cole's YouTube Channel:

This web site is a joint effort by David Chandler (retired physics teacher), Jonathan Cole (professional engineer), and Nathan Flach (video archivist). We are all independent 9/11 researchers, and affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Our goal has been to uncover the truth and shed some light on the events of 9/11, each in our own way.