100 Critical Points About 9/11 | TruthFulmedia

Regarding WTC7:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor reported immediately before the building’s destruction

3. Symmetrical “structural failure” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional — referring to the evidently bias-free testimony of the late Danny Jowenko (link)

7. Foreknowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY (particularly the numerous media announcements of the WTC7 collapse more than 20 minutes prior to its occurrence)

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Very few visible fire deformations prior to complete collapse of WTC7

11. No evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

12. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed (One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank)

via 100 Critical Points About 9/11 | TruthFulmedia.


4 Responses

  1. If the buildings were blown up should they not have residue that would indicate what type of explosives were used or bomb sniffing dogs indicating bomb material?

  2. 1. The seismic data refutes any kind of ‘collapse’ for WTC7 (and WTC 1 and 2). The signal for WTC7 was 0.6 (barely discernible from background noise). This is equivalent to only a couple of floors slamming into the ground. To have 47 floors (230,000 tons) slamming into the ground in a little under 7 seconds would have created a much larger seismic signal. Therefore anyone who claims WTC7 ‘collapsed’ (due to fire, bombs, thermite, termites or hacksaws) is ignoring basic irrefutable evidence and is being unscientific and dishonest.

    2. Sound of explosions does not necessarily = bombs. Firefighters reported their Scott Packs (oxygen tanks) exploding while they were sitting on their firetrucks. It appears that many things that day (such as the buildings) were actually turning to dust. We would expect pressure vessels (such as oxygen tanks, fire extinguishers etc) to explode as soon as they lost enough integrity.

    Maybe there were bombs going off, but bombs they do not account for what happened to the buildings (see point 1). Bombs might have been used as a distraction (red herring), or to get people away from the buildings, or to disable the security floors which handled all the CCTV and evacuation announcements (which I believe were in the basements of the twin towers), or to disable the fire sprinklers. Who knows?

    3. Agreed. FWIW the tallest building ever brought down by controlled demo was less than the height of WTC7, which is itself about half the height of WTC 1 and 2. The taller the building, the more precise the CD has to be for it not to topple over. There is no evidence that thermite can be precise enough (or powerful enough) to destroy all supports simultaneously. Thermite works by heat transfer. Thermite demolition is basically lighting a very hot fire on each columns and hoping each fire will burn through its columns at the same time. Plus there is no evidence of heat or light being produced during the destruction of WTC 1, 2 or 7.

    4. WTC7 did not collapse (see point 1) but yes, the WTC7 debris did end up in its own footprint. The WTC7 debris did not even spill across the two lane street between WTC7 and the Post Office building. For a 47 story building to no spill across the street is incredible.

    5. Pyroclastic clouds are scalding hot. The clouds on 9/11 were not hot. Nobody was burnt by them. People described them as either “warm” or “colder than ambient temperature”. Paper and leaves on nearby trees was not burnt. Vehicles parked right next to the towers were not burnt. People inside the towers were not burned. Plastic ID cards inside the towers were not burnt. This evidence also rules out ‘hot dust clouds’ as being the cause of the 1400 toasted cars in and around the WTC complex. The destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all cold events (with the exception of a few isolated fires here).

    6. Sure WTC7 looks superficially a bit like a controlled demo. A man having a heart attack in the street, clutching his chest and then collapsing to the pavement looks a bit like a drive by shooting (especially if you have guns on your mind). But did Jowenko ever mention (or account for) the seismic data? Was he even aware of it? Did he ever say thermite was used, or that thermite COULD be used to bring a tall thin building down in a controlled way? I don’t think so.

    7. Someone did appear to warn the media and firefighters that WTC7 was about to be destroyed.

    8. There were many bizarre effects observed, including fusion of dissimilar materials, rapid ‘rustification’, missing marble facades (WFC), missing porcelain toilets and file cabinets (the towers), missing engine blocks in cars parked blocks away etc.

    9. There is no evidence of large quantities of hot molten metal at ground zero. Tons of molten metal in the debris would have eventually cooled into giant plugs with lots of girders and stuff embedded into it. No such plugs of cooled metal were ever found. No molten metal or thermite was present in the dust could (it was cold and there was no light or glowing). No molten metal or thermite rained down from above into the basements because 16 people survived inside WTC1 and they were not burnt by anything. No molten metal was present in the basements because plastic shop display items from the basement mall survived and were not melted.

    One photograph of firemen staring into an abyss of molten metal (LINK) turned out to be a photo of firemen looking into a hole in the rubble at night with powerful spotlights shining into it. I believe it was one of the main promoters of the thermite hypothesis who adjusted the photo to make the whitish light look more orange and then presented it as ‘evidence’ of molten metal.

    10. Agreed (except that WTC7 did not collapse)

    11. Agreed

    12. Agreed

    For more details of the evidence mentioned above, check out this video – LINK

    • 1) Dr. Andre Rousseau, a specialist in acoustic waves of the National Center for Scientific Research in France would disagree with you. From an article published last November:

      “Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.”

      2) You seem to make a lot of assumptions and dismiss the vast amount of testimony surrounding secondary explosions. This is not a trivial issue and, yet, the NIST report and other institutional authorities have dismissed it as such.

      3) You appear to dismiss thermite as a significant factor despite strong evidence for it’s presence being found at the WTC sites. Moreover, if we assume a “natural collapse” brought on by plane impact and fires, alone, then these are absolutely the most unique building collapses in history. Any controlled demolition operation must have been years in the making which would have given plenty of time to orchestrate a demolition of this magnitude. As is outlined in my list, above, the means of preparation through access to sensitive areas of the building were clearly present.

      4) WTC7 did collapse. This is explained by the fact that there was a heaping pile of rubble where the building once stood. 😉

      5) Pyroclastic clouds are scalding-hot. “Pyroclastic-like” clouds are not.

      6) As a leading demolitions expert, Jowenko knows exactly what a controlled demolition looks like. He agrees this is what occurred in WTC7.

      7) [Agreed.]

      8) [Basically agreed.]

      9) There is corroborated testimony by highly-qualified witnesses pertaining to molten metal at the base of the buildings. The vast majority of those defending the “official” narrative do not dispute this but, rather, focus on whether or not this metal was primarily steel or another metal, such as aluminum. In either case, this is an extremely unusual observation. The image of firemen searching the rubble with an intense light below them is, indeed, merely a picture of a flashlight reflecting light. However, this does not explain the authoritative testimony describing observations of molten metal flowing “like a foundry”:

      10) [Agreed.]

      11) [Agreed.]

      12) [Agreed.]

      There are 90 other points and a number of additional resources on my list, if you wish to try and refute them:


      I appreciate your attempt.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: