Views: 64120 | Comments: 9




Before we get started, I want to pose a question to everyone. What do you think the most dangerous religion in the World is? Islam? Buddhism? Judaism? Christianity? Hinduism? Well if you talk about the number of people killed by this most dangerous religion…it’s none of those. In fact, the World’s most dangerous religion is Statism. What is Statism you ask? Well, you’ve heard the phrase never to argue about politics and religion, right? The reason is because politics is a religion.

That’s right politics is the act of having faith and a belief in your government. Governments have killed more people over the centuries than all other religions combined! You want to watch this video. It may change the way you see governments of the World…..Including your own.

For the thinking people who have looked at the evidence, there has long been no doubt that the twin towers collapsed not from jet fuel as the official government lie wants you to believe. The world trade centers were taken down by internal explosives. It was a professional demolition. That’s not a theory, THAT IS A PROVABLE FACT! As a matter of fact, it can be proven mathematically. It can be proven via physics.

To disagree is like saying that 2+2 doesn’t equal four. For those who have known the truth all along, we are simply proving what you already know by using mathematical equations. For those of you who doubt 9/11 was an inside job, we can prove using numbers and simple physics, that once again the government lied to you. The twin towers collapsing because of jet fuel is not just unlikely…...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

9/11 Research: Robert Podolski (Physicist, Engineer) – Doesn’t Believe the NIST “Collapse by fire Theory”....As a matter of fact, he says it’s mathematically impossible!

MIT physicist/engineer Jeff King gives his thorough analysis of the WTC collapses on 9/11 and concludes that explosive controlled demolition is the only scientifically explainable hypothesis.

Excerpts below from 911blimp.net

Free-Falling Bodies

Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie

The “Collapse” Theory Fails Reality Check

You can also check out this article for more proof that the twin towers were imploded from the inside:

It’s official, 9/11 was a government controlled operation

On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) “collapsed”. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated on television for days.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current Secretary of Defense stated (cached), “The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”

Well, first of all, the American people saw things not with their own eyes but on television, which is comprised nowadays of digital information, which can be manipulated by computers. So, right off the top, Gates’ premise is flawed. And while the towers are gone, people have, both with their own eyes and on TV, seen magic performed before; eyes can be deceived. So let’s just examine his other premise: whether or not it is true that people know what they saw.

(The following must be said before we can get to the physics.)

The government and the media told us what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a “gravitational collapse”; what is now referred to as a “pancake collapse”. According to the government’s, and PBS’s, and Popular Mechanics’, and Scientific American’s theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment.

According to their “pancake theory”, this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we’ve been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to and becoming incorporated into a growing stack of floors falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory; it does not fit the observed facts: It cannot account for the total failure of the immense core columns, nor the ‘disappearance’ of that so-called “growing stack”, nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity ‘collapse’ times, nor the huge energy surplus, nor the nanosizes of the ‘dust’ particles. This article focuses on the third of these mentioned discrepancies, and just scratches the surface of the fourth.

The scientists who’ve concocted the popularized “pancake theory” made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists that incredible pancake theory of theirs using simple, high-school physics!

And that’s what we’re about to do here. We’re going to check the work something every grade-schooler is taught to do of those “scientists”.

We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.

How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up…) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. (That doesn’t mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty—gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

Of course, people didn’t figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster.

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity’s pull (ie, it’s heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity’s pull is not opposed (ie, when it’s falling). Earth’s gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.

The Simplest Case

From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the earth, earth’s gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

And so on.

Further, since gravity’s acceleration is constant, and it’s falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time


Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2×32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds, in Earth’s gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work

OK, we’ve just solved a simple physics problem! Now let’s check our work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car’s engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine’s not 100% efficient). When we use our car’s brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity’s pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

So let’s just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object’s mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1×32 x 144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2×1 x 96(squared) = 1/2×9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We’ve checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That’s how parachutes work: much of the falling object’s potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity’s maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object’s potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object’s downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity’s potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That’s why you may have heard the term “terminal velocity”. The free-fall equations predict that a falling object’s velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air’s resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

A Quick Recap

Earth’s gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity’s potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward even just having to push air out of the way there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object’s downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object’s downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let’s start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers’ former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)


2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers’ former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object’s velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth’s atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers’ former height.

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government’s “complete and final report” of 9/11, that the South Tower “collapsed” in 10 seconds. “quote”: At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds”(That’s the government’s official number) Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we’ve just determined, that’s free-fall time. That’s close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the “collapse” proceeded “through” the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can’t do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

You can move your arms and legs, non-destructively, through water a liquid fluid but not anywhere near as rapidly as you can through air. You certainly can’t move your arms and legs through solids as rapidly as you can through air. And neither can gravity.

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a gravitational collapse through the path of maximum resistance should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!


Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways and even upward ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized, actually disintegrated is a much better word. (Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns…!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.


In order for the tower to have “collapsed” gravitationally, as we’ve been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse

* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy

* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity could really be

* On 9/11, energy was not conserved

However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analysis designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC “collapses” fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a “pancake collapse” cannot account for what happened. The “pancake collapse theory” explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a “gravitational collapse” to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC “collapses” can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down “collapses” reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous “pancake collapse” explanation, Gates’ other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The purported “gravitational collapse” (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the “pancake collapse” theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960. This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”

This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.

Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center’s designers anticipated.” This statement is supported by the following chart:


Boeing 707-340

Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity

23,000 gallons

23,980 gallons

max takeoff weight

328,060 lbs

395,000 lbs

empty weight

137,562 lbs

179,080 lbs


145.75 ft

156.08 ft

wing area

3010 ft2

3050 ft2


152.92 ft

159.17 ft

cruise speed

607 mph

530 mph

In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”

Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”

In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11. This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.” This ‘white paper’ concluded that:

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”18 In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”

The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.

Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:

“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings doesn’t think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I’m not saying that properly applied explosives shaped explosives of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”

Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet air—plane.”

Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

In summary, the World Trade Center designers not only contemplated jet fuel fires but they considered the plane crashes that would have caused them. They anticipated impact speeds of 600 mph as well as aircraft similar in size to the planes used on 9/11.

The towers were designed to survive substantial column loss along with 100 mph winds. They were intended to survive bombings, earthquakes, and hurricanes. If the designers were sufficiently competent in the planning and realization of their award-winning WTC Towers as intended, they should have remained standing. Tragically, they did not. From this irreconcilable fact there can only be one conclusion; There is an alternate explanation for their destruction on 9/11.

Not only had many witnesses claimed to have seen molten metal, FEMA had performed an analysis of it. Their observations were recorded in Appendix C of their WTC Building Performance Study.[40] Ironically, Robertson stated that he was not aware if anyone had performed an analysis on the molten steel in an interview with Jones who had also performed an analysis of previously molten metal samples from Ground zero. Jones’ findings appear to be corroborated by the FEMA report which described “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

’”[The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” NIST did not even mention the presence of molten steel and called it “irrelevant to the investigation.”Amazingly, NIST’s 10 000 page, $20 million report couldn’t find the space to mention the earlier findings about the molten steel analyzed in the FEMA report. There have even been reports of evaporated steel.

The presence of molten steel would be very surprising because jet fuel fires are incapable of melting steel. In fact, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.

Consider this:

If the official story is true, then companies that offer complex controlled demolitions using explosives are clearly going to be out of business. Thanks to those wily hijackers we now have a much cheaper solution. If a structural steel high-rise needs to be removed, all that is necessary is to pick a floor somewhere in the upper portion of the building, saw off a few columns, flood the floor with jet fuel, light a match and stand back.

The building will then (about 1 or 2 hours later) miraculously crush itself, shredding the steel into tidy 12-30 ft sections. The rest of the building will be conveniently converted into a fine dust that will be spread over a large area so somebody else will have to clean it up!


It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. These contradictions must be resolved through the release of all of the pertinent WTC documents that have been withheld since 9/11.

More problems with the “Official” story. Another eyewitness murdered for telling the truth:

A Challenge to American Journalism

The significance of the Barry Jennings mystery is that his personal story as recounted on video leads to the conclusion that the destruction of the towers on 9/11 was planned. No cause of death has been made public, and the mainstream press has not even covered the death of this American hero.

Summary of Case

Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess.

Jennings publicly shared his experiences with a reporter on the day of 9/11/01, as well as in a lengthy 2007 video interview with Dylan Avery, a small clip of which was then released; subsequently his job was threatened and he asked that the taped interview not be included in Loose Change Final Cut.. However, after an interview with Jennings was broadcast by the BBC in their program The Third Tower ostensibly refuting what he had previously stated to Avery, Avery felt compelled to release the full original video interview to show the distortions made by the BBC.

Several other individuals at the Housing Authority also confirmed that they knew Barry Jennings.

No one has yet been able to contact anyone in the Jennings family and the official cause of death is not yet known.

It is very unusual that a prominent – and controversial 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST’s report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown-out lobby.

“Loose Change” director, and narrator Dylan Avery had recently begun investigating the death of Barry Jennings, and had found some new information relating to his death.

It seems that there is a very good possibility that Jennings’ death could have been due to foul play. Though the investigations are on going, initial findings are somewhat alarming. The conclusion is still forthcoming, but I was shocked by what I heard.

It seems that Dylan had hired a private investigator to look into Jennings death which remains shrouded in mystery. His motive was simply to bring some closure to the life of Barry Jennings, and in doing so to honor the memory of this brave American. The Investigator ended up referring the case to Law enforcement before refunding his pay, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Very unusual to say the least. Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale.

Personally, something is really beginning to stink here. Why would a highly paid PI refuse to continue his investigation? Why did he refer the matter to police? He is not talking. What is he afraid of. Was he warned to cease and desist? If so by whom?

The cause of Jennings’ death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with his investigation. In spite of the significance of Jennings’ position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements.

By Joe Monoco



Website Tracking

By J Monoco 09/09/2019 12:49 PM

Recent Comments

  1. SS wrote on 02/21/2012 03:13 PM

    Even without this knowledge of physics, which I admit is way over my head, it just seems totally stupid that something could crash into a building that high up, and cause it to collaps. One would tend to think the building would explode outward if anything. Seems as if it would have all been much more believable, if the planes had of flown in at a much lower level and that would most likely cause the buildings to crash over.

  2. psikeyhackr wrote on 03/07/2012 11:55 AM

    The Physics Profession should have been all over this in 2002 because of the very short time in which the towers came down. But when have you heard a physicist discuss applying the Conservation of Momentum to the collapse of the towers. The Empire State Building is 80 years old. It is not 43 years after the Moon landing. This ain't Rocket Science. All of the high school physics teachers should be fired. The college physics professors should be shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo This is not about conspiracies. This is about PHYSICS!

  3. Jay wrote on 10/11/2012 07:19 AM

    Israel, Mossad, dancing Israelis, Ehud Barak, in America speech ready as people dropping out of towers, Harley guy in street with speech on "structural failure". This operation has Israeli Mossad all over it. See video on Youtube (why the military knows Israel did 9/11) by Doctor Alan Sabrosky.

  4. smil wrote on 05/01/2013 02:08 AM

    What has always made me wonder and still seems to be too miraculous to be without suspicion is that will all the thousands of employees at both towers, not more people were killed that day. It's as if some companies specifically were told not to be there that day. The other thing is whether there is an actual count of the number of employees who were there and escaped the tragedy? In all of the commotion, it seems that not that many people were running out of the buildings. It seems that all the companies in the two towers had over 10,000 employees in each tower. To lose only 3000 seems strange. Most employees would have been in their offices between 8:00 and 8:30 AM. Where were they and where did they all go? And why weren't they at work unless they were asked not be in attendance? Did they interview all the companies that didn't lose any employees on that day?

  5. JM wrote on 12/14/2014 08:38 PM

    Only in America could an impossible explanation like the official 9-11 report be sold as real: 9-11 was a Cheney, Rumsfeld, Silverstein production, featuring the Mossad, et al. Americans are so physics and math challenged, this was a duck soup con .. and the foxes in the hen house controlled all of the info ... brilliant.

  6. Kevin wrote on 09/12/2015 01:59 AM

    I'm suprised that THEY didn't come out a few days later and say something like "Ivestigation reveales - Terrorists compromised twin towers and planted explosives at base support structure to ensure destruction of Twin Towers." That would have made it a little more believable. My observation from day one was, why didn't the buildings fall over. One would thing that "terrorists" would go for maximum destruction.

  7. Nick wrote on 01/13/2016 11:23 PM

    There are tons of facts around the internet that prove what you are stating here, and in my opinion stories like these about 9/11 should not be even considered as conspiracy because the 9/11 report challenges not only the mathematics, it also challenges the knowledge and experience of almost every construction and demolition experts on the planet.

  8. Ian Williams wrote on 02/16/2016 09:28 PM

    This website has opened my eyes to the truth

  9. Heidi wrote on 06/15/2017 11:38 AM

    A LOT of work was put into this, and it shows. I am a truther, so I have been convinced for a while, but this has given me a way to simply explain it to others in a manner that is UNDENIABLE. Thank you.

Post Your Comment

Post comment