Come Get Me Glenn

Since, as Paul Joseph Watson points out,  Mr. Beck and Chris Mathews have both decided (and by “decided” I mean “were told”) it’s time to start demonizing 9/11 Truth Advocates in public again, I figured I would rather stand up than stand down. So both of those two guys can go to hell and I am reposting some of my more interesting articles on the subject of what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Enjoy.

9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t

 Scott Creighton (reposted from May 25th 2009)

Prologue: The Premise

Take yourself back to that day when you watched or listened to the attack on America; the day that everything changed. Remember where you were, who you were with, and most importantly, how you felt.

cnn_911_screenThink about the last few events of that day; how the news of the Pentagon being hit by something was followed almost immediately by the unexpected complete collapse of the South Tower (WTC 2). Remember how we had barely recovered from that shock, one that we were forced to watch in horror over and over again, when the unspeakable happened; the North Tower (WTC 1) fell in exactly the same way; at an eerie and almost supernatural speed as plumes of smoke and steel columns flung across city blocks.

Now I want you to put yourself in that very moment, once again, and prepare yourself for the missing final act that never took place and yet may be one of the most telling and condemning pieces of evidence in the ongoing unofficial investigation of 9/11.

The 9/11 Shock Opera

–  Flight 93 and Building 7 –  The Grand Finale … that wasn’t.

The North Tower has fallen and people are in absolute disbelief.  The grey faces staring back at us through the live news reports tell the story; they are blank with shock like infants in a war zone.

Continue reading

Sneak Peak: Revised Demolition Theory Hypothesis

by Scott Creighton (re-posted from Sept 16, 2009)

I know you guys think I have been slacking, but there are things in the works over here.  Really.  I mean it.  You don’t believe me?  I know you don’t… so here’s a sneak peak at my Revised WTC Demolition Theory Hypothesis.  More careful study of the NCSTAR1 report (a troll suggested I do it) has turned up some interesting facts like:

1. the composition of the trusses themselves (no A-36 structural steel, but rather a combination of ASTM A-242 and an ASTM A-572 equivalent)

2. the number of the trusses (nearly doubled the 23,000 of my first estimate)

3. the existence of an ELECTRICAL WIRING DUCT that ran next to most of the trusses and embedded in the concrete once that was poured (very important for the DET CORD theory)

4. pictures of a few scraps of the trusses recovered from Ground Zero

Anyway, I am still working on it.   So here are a few technical drawings that I have just completed showing in detail, what I think caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Det Cord runs through electrical ducts pre-fabricated in floor sections. No drilling or cutting required.

Det Cord runs through electrical ducts pre-fabricated in floor sections. No drilling or cutting required.

(see more details after the break)



Some revisions based on the NCSTAR diagram located on page 6. Notice the electrical ducts and the doubled trusses.

Standard floor sections as shipped and installed in WTC 1 and 2

Standard floor sections as shipped and installed in WTC 1 and 2

Lightweight concrete poured over floor sections after installation would cover electrical ducts.

Lightweight concrete poured over floor sections after installation would cover electrical ducts.

The composition of the trusses was not simply carbon and iron as has been suggested by many others.  That would be the main composition of A-36 structural steel. But as NIST points out, in the fabrication process of the trusses, the company that made them substituted a higher grade steel, a HSLA steel, for the parts of the trusses that were to be comprised of A-36 structural steel.  They also used ASTM A-242 steel in the trusses.  This could explain the reports of silicone, sulfur, and various other metals found in the “iron rich spheres”.

Continue reading

The 46,000 Missing Trusses of 9/11

by Scott Creighton (reposted from Aug 9th 2009)

also read Sneak Peak: Revised Demolition Theory Hypothesis

***UPDATE*** note the updated truss count. My original estimate of 23,000 trusses was based on the idea that they used single trusses in between the section breaks when in fact they did not, they used double trusses everywhere on each floor. My first count was based on doing a layout of the truss structure and then simply counting and multiplying that number by the number of floors which used these trusses. Turns out, the number of missing trusses is actually double my original number… about 43,000 – 46,000. With that one exception, I believe the research in this article still stands.

***UPDATE*** Please check out the companion article, The 6,000.

According to the official explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11th, 2001… the initial plane crashes damaged the core structure of the towers enough so that when the resulting fires “weakened” the floor trusses, the result was that the remaining floors above the areas of the plane crash and fires crashed down on the undamaged parts of the buildings, and “pulverized” them in a gravity driven demolition of sorts.

This “official” explanation, which if left unchallenged, stands as the basis for the endless “War on Terror”, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the attacks on the general population of Pakistan, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrentless and illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, and various other assaults on our democratic freedoms… is basically a lie.

It is impossible.

Continue reading

The 6,000

by Scott Creighton (reposted from Aug. 11, 2009)

***UPDATE*** At the end of this article, I have added a plan view layout and cross-section of what I hypothesize as the potential det cord layout plan for a typical WTC floor.  Scott has asked how the cord may have been used, so I thought I would include the drawings.


In yesterdays article titled “The 23,000 Missing Trusses of 9/11“, I questioned why it is that I can’t seem to find one single truss (of the 23,300+ of them from the Twin Towers) in all the photos of the debris and the clean-up process at Ground Zero.  I went further and hypothesized that the missing trusses may in fact be the mysterious “tons of iron-rich (read as “steel”) spheres” that Jones and others have found.  It would seem a logical assumption.

As odd as their absence from the debris field is, when you understand how these truss sections were fabricated and installed, it makes the story of the missing trusses an even greater mystery.  And perhaps an even bigger clue.

The 6,000

High above the Manhattan skyline, in the early 70’s, over 6,000 of these prefabricated floor sections were hoisted by construction cranes and then set into place by union steel workers fabricating the World Trade Centers.   On Sept. 11th 2001, according to the official record of that day, they simply fell and in so doing, disappeared into the history books as if they never existed.

typical 60' floor section WTC

typical 60' floor section WTC

I for one, would like to know how that is possible.

Continue reading

BBC Piece Post-Mortem: Mark Loizeaux and the Special Engineer

by Scott Creighton (reposted from Feb. 16, 2009)

It is difficult for me to know where to begin peeling away the layers of misinformation the BBC peddled to their audience in last weeks exposé on the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center in New York.

There are so many people out there grinding away at exposing the flawed production, I don’t feel the need to repeat what they have already done with journeyman-like effectiveness, yet there is something that I have yet to see addressed that I feel is crucial to exposing the overall lack of trustworthiness of the piece. And there is another related aspect of it, that I feel may in fact, be almost an unintended admission, of sorts.

At issue? Mark Loizeaux’s direct misrepresentation of facts and Peter Hayden’s uncanny admission about a “special engineer” on site before Building 7 came down,  and how those two things may in fact be related.

Continue reading

Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition

by Scott Creighton (reposted from Aug. 22, 2008)

Yesterday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a division of the Department of Commerce, finally released it’s report on the cause of the mysterious collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex. There have already been several to jump out in front and claim that this puts an end to the “conspiracy theories” that have surrounded Building 7’s inexplicable destruction, since it happened on Sept. 11th 2001.

We really have a new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here, which is a fire induced progressive collapse. In fact, we have shown for the first time, that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”. Shyam Sunder. (first time in history and flies in the face of what we know about engineering and the laws of physics. But, they NEVER tested for explosive residue and yet, this is the “first time” this “new” phenomenon occurred? Right.)

Steven Jones and Richard Gage have already come forward and denounced NIST’s finding as implausible.

NIST’s entire theory is based on the idea that regular office fires burned hot enough to cause a failure of a key connection in a key area that cause “global” and symmetrical failure to occur. This is highly improbable at best (since it never happened in the history of steel framed high-rise buildings). NIST is basing their findings, not on forensic evidence but rather a computer simulation; a computer simulation that they programed and tweakedandif it’s anything like their “computer simulation” they did to come up with the “global collapse” scenario of the North and South Towers, then they will NEVER allow an architect or engineer anywhere near the simulation program so they can evaluate it’s accuracy.

But that isn’t the big news flash that should be coming out of this report. The fact is, it looks like the sole reasons that NIST is claiming that they concluded there was no “controlled demolition” of Building 7 appears to be coming from Mark Loizeaux; the owner of the demolitioncompany that was on scene of the WTC destruction right after 9/11 and a man by his own admission, called his friends in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001 and told them to get out of the area because he knew the buildings would come down.

Mark Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having been a contributing contractor for the report.

Continue reading