Steel to Powder: on 9/11

Interview with Morgan Reynolds

There are always two stories, but it’s the third story that matters. The first two are designed to keep you from the third…Like two well-trained sheepdogs, these two narratives herd collective attention away from the third story… - Unbekoming

---

With 9/11, the official tale—planes, hijackers, collapses—dominates the public mind, while the skeptics’ counter of controlled demolition circles like a second sheepdog. But it’s the third story that cuts deeper, the one they don’t want you to see. Like my exploration in “Dustification,” where Dr. Judy Wood’s work unveils a molecular unraveling of the towers, or my interview with Feargus O’Connor Greenwood on his book 180 Degrees, which frames 9/11 as a staged ritual of control, the real thread emerges: no collapse—just a vanishing act powered by secret tech and a will to deceive.

To those blind, it’s a tale of box cutters and jet fuel. To those who see, 9/11 was a flex of almighty force—a decree etched in dust and stillness. It revealed hidden technology, towers not falling but dissolving, a raw power chanting "do what thou wilt," hissing, “We’ll do this to our own, and to you too—obey.” The third story isn’t just the event; it’s the unseen hand wielding it, grinding steel to powder, truth to fable, steering us from questions too fierce to face.

Morgan Reynolds, a voice unafraid to chase that third story, joins me here. His nomoregames.net lays bare the evidence—seismic whispers, missing debris, a bathtub unbreached—echoing Wood’s forensics and Greenwood’s unmasking of intent. He sees 9/11 not as a collapse but a conjuring, a psyop of will over reality.

With thanks to Morgan Reynolds.

No More Games | The Official Website of Morgan Reynolds

Related Posts

Dustification - Lies are Unbekoming

Interview with Feargus O’Connor Greenwood

Understanding False Flags - Lies are Unbekoming

---

1. Morgan, could you please share your journey and how your academic and professional background shaped your decision to investigate 9/11, and when you realized the official story couldn’t fully explain the events of that day?

To borrow from an interview¹ I did back in 2003, I was chief economist (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, 1971) at the U.S. Department of Labor, 2001–2002. I was on leave from Texas A&M University, only on the job one week when 9/11 occurred. My oldest son emailed me that morning from Kansas City, “Dad, are you getting out of the building?” What the heck was he talking about? He knew the Labor Department was one or two blocks from the Capitol Building, so I walked about 100 feet to an office with a TV on and I saw WTC 1 smoking profusely and I couldn’t help comment, “That building will not fall.” Turns out I was right, but more about its subsequent disintegration below. I am author of Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America (1984), Economics of Labor (1995), and Making America Poorer (1987), and more than 60 articles in scholarly journals as well as dozens of articles in the popular press and think tank pieces. I am an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, Mises lecturer at the Austrian Scholars Conference 8, and former senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis based in Dallas, Texas.

Another 9/11 issue I wondered about immediately was, could a large airliner like a Boeing 767 just disappear into a one-quarter mile high steel/concrete tower without airplane debris, luggage and bodies all over? I put these suspicions aside until David Ray Griffin (1939-2022) brought out his first 9/11 book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004). I was very excited about this event and that book changed my life’s focus. Virtually all my intellectual effort ever since has been posted on my blog, nomoregames.net and 9/11 pieces must be a majority of the entries.

2. In your work, you’ve discussed key engineering problems with the collapse of the Twin Towers. Could you break down the main structural issue that leads you to believe controlled demolition is plausible?

I never believed controlled demolition was plausible although I did mistakenly use the word “collapse” early on in my investigation. I own a book by Helene Liss with the famous Loizeaux Family of Controlled Demolition, Inc., titled Demolition: The Art of Demolishing, Dismantling, Imploding, Toppling & Razing, NYC, NY: BD&L, 2000. It explains the process of what the Loizeaux family calls the process of implosion on p. 44. Each building is unique and therefore requires weeks of inspection of the “structure, often with the aid of architectural drawings…the crew assesses the number and types of holes to be drilled to house the explosives. Test blasts are conducted on columns wrapped in protective material to contain the debris…to assess the strength needed to fracture or eliminate the columns. Once this is determined, the drilling begins, followed by the insertion of the charges that will eventually ignite the explosives…blasting caps…are placed one to each stick of explosive and set off with electricity…detonator wires…explosive cord…The first charge is set, and the rest follow in a carefully orchestrated manner…the building bends and folds in on itself…all that remains is a pile of rubble.”

Dr. Wood points out that all this work “would have had to be done in secret” Where Did The Towers Go? (2010, p. 98). Neither bomb sniffing dogs (pp. 99-100) nor humans ever discovered any such demolition preparation work at the WTC. Similar problems obviously render carelessly distributed “bombs in the building” as a non-starter to explain destruction of the WTC.

The twin towers (TT) were one-quarter mile tall with 110 floors each. There is no evidence that a gravity-driven, controlled demolition slammed them to the ground. None, as in zero, nicht. Each tower weighed an estimated 500,000 tons and like other buildings “are approximately 85 percent air” (Liss, p. 45). “The rubble pile should be at least 1/8 of the original building height (12.5%)…[yet] the rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building height” (Wood, Figure 120, p.132). The 110 floors x 2 never “pancaked down” to the base of the TT. Nope, not in evidence. And why were the seismic/earthquake data so modest? Dr. Shyam Sunder of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the following statement about the WTC 1 and WTC 2 seismic signals, “The signals’ strength due to the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant from an earthquake design standpoint or from the design or a failure of a structural component…” (p. 59). Further, the World Trade Center was built out into the Hudson river enabled by a so-called protective bathtub (aka “slurry wall”) and one-half million tons from each tower would have broken it wide open and flooded lower Manhattan and the subway tunnels, obviously not the enormous damage the perpetrators sought. “The controlled demolition model does not account for the lack of significant damage to the bathtub beneath the WTC towers” (p. 91).

Dr. Judy Wood in her magnificent volume cautions us that “On 9/11/01, the World Trade Center towers went away faster than they could have in a gravity-driven collapse. According to the seismographic evidence, WTC 1 was destroyed more quickly than a billiard ball could free-fall from the roof to the ground in a vacuum…instead of grabbing on to a theory, let us grab on to the evidence” (p. 95). Consider

“FACT: Of the estimated 3,000 toilets in the WTC1 and WTC2, not one survived, nor was any recognizable portion of one whatsoever found. WHY?

FACT: Only one piece of office equipment in the entire WTC complex, a filing cabinet with folder dividers, survived. WHY?” (p. 481).

3. What do you make of the rapid, symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7, which was not struck by a plane?

There again we encounter that word “collapse” which we must use carefully lest we be led astray. I highly recommend we consult Dr. Wood’s exhaustive investigation for careful forensic analysis of all the evidence. WTC7 was 47 stories tall, weighed 200,000+ tons, likely as many as 240,000 tons. “In conventional controlled demolition, explosives are used to destroy the building’s supports so that large sections of it will slam to the ground. The detonation of the explosives is heard and the chunks of building slamming to the ground is heard. Such evidence was not documented by video cameras recording the events on 9/11” (p. 85). WTC7’s seismic equivalent impact during its destruction was a paltry 0.6 (Table 2 p. 65), and Dr. Wood comments, “In other words, there’s basically no seismic event for WTC7’s demise” (p. 87). Even NIST agreed (p. 87).

What does this mean? Despite appearances to the contrary, much of the building’s hidden structural material and interior weight must have disappeared before collapse. Dust (fine powder) emitted from the east side of the north face of WTC7 on 9/11, so ponder the following:

“FACT: What this book calls lather, thick clouds of dust and fumes, emanated from some faces of buildings before destruction, as if large volumes of the buildings’ mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC7 for several hours before its destruction. WHY?” (p. 483).

“FACT: The destruction of WTC7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet (p. 482).

FACT: The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WT7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth” (p. 483).

For more, see pp. 340-43. In particular, Dr. Wood states, “The observed conditions, paradoxical within conventional parameters of thinking, are at the same time logically consistent with unusual energy effects that clearly both deserve and require explanation” (p. 343).

4. How do you interpret the presence of molten steel reported by witnesses and recovery teams at Ground Zero?

Nonsense, there was no “molten steel” despite various claims to the contrary. Where are all the burnt boots? We’ve got to remember that 9/11 was the greatest psyop ever carried out. “Steel fireplace grills don’t collapse from fire. Nearly everyone has heard of kerosene heaters. Do they melt?” (p. 42). People were fooled on 9/11, emotion overcame reason and critical thinking, as the perpetrators knew it would. “We’re talking about the fact that most people see what they expect to see, what they want to see, what they’ve been told to see, what conventional wisdom tells them to see, not what is right in front of them in pristine condition.—Vincent Bugliosi” (p. 45).

There were strange effects on 9/11, in particular, “hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot. Consider a fluorescent light. It glows enough to light the room but does not put out light by means of heat (as in incandescence)” (p. 263). Dr. Wood decisively refutes the rumors of high heat, in my opinion, see pp. 262-93. I can only cite a few facts here. No one could out-run the clouds, but “there were no piles of burned bodies left behind. No one reported having been burned by the dust cloud. Vehicles burned, but people did not. Street signs did not burn, and neither did trees” (p. 257). There was unburned paper everywhere, flags did not burn.

The eyewitness descriptions resemble “the types of effects one would be experiencing in an energy field, such as a microwave field” (p. 262). Grapplers depend upon hydraulic systems and “if there had been any molten steel in the rubble, it would have permanently damaged any excavation equipment encountering it…At a minimum, the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up” (p. 266). In her conclusion to Chapter 13 Wood writes “All these phenomena are more in line with a force of some kind that is ‘cooking’ things from the inside out…in line with the deployment of an exotic directed energy technology, and a very sophisticated one at that” (p. 293). As the new Grok AI (Elon Musk) points out, “The site smolders for years, not from heat, but from residual energy reactions, as if the technology lingers in the ground, subtly altering the environment.”

5. Can you explain the significance of the free-fall speed collapse and why it contradicts conventional engineering principles?

The short answer is there was no “free-fall speed collapse” to violate the laws of physics and conventional engineering principles to explain. The physical laws remain immutable. Most of the TT turned to fine powder top-down within 8-9 seconds, with dust particles the size of DNA (pp. 73, 327). The real explanation? A Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) caused molecular dissociation and transmutation (p. 253). Molecular dissociation means molecules separate or even repel each other (p. 492). Transmutation is the conversion of one chemical element into another (p. 494). Microwaves and radio-frequency signals are a type of directed energy, but are not considered a DEW unless used as a weapon. The Soviet term for this was energetics which includes conventional DEW as well as unconventional DEW (p.490).

No conventional cause can explain all the 9/11 data. It was unconventional, exotic weaponry commanding free-energy. Please note that there is a Directed Energy Professional Society https://www.deps.org active in the USA with many top military contractors as members.

6. You’ve highlighted discrepancies in NIST’s investigation. What specific flaws do you believe undermine their findings?

Now I want to depart from Dr. Wood’s work and turn to my legal case (https://nomoregames.net/2011/06/12/request-for-correction-by-nist-for-its-invalid-wtc-jetliner-animations-and-analyses) against the NIST contractors responsible for the lies told in the NIST report. The first thing to note is that the NIST contractors were hired to cover up the truth, that is, to lend professional respectability to official lies about airliner crashes, burning jet fuel and subsequent “collapses” of the twin towers. It was a totally dishonest enterprise. As I wrote in my Affidavit to sue 20 defendant NIST contractors, they were employed to reach and support fraudulent, predetermined political conclusions backed up by their prestigious “expertise.”

Perhaps the best approach is to rely on my Affidavit to select flaws in the NIST document (NCSTAR 1) which was false to the point of absurdity. Consider my paragraph 26: The only Boeing 767 known hijacked prior to 9/11 was Ethiopian Flight 961 which ran out of fuel toward the end of its flight on November 23, 1996. Water tore that Boeing 767 to pieces off the island of Comoros in the Indian Ocean, “Due to the fact that the pilot tried landing parallel with the tides, the left engine and wingtip struck the water first, causing the aircraft to break up” (22). Is water—parallel with tides or not—“stronger” than a massive steel-and-concrete tower? Does H2O impose more resistance, more force, upon an airliner than a steel-and-concrete tower? Yet within 14" of “soft” water resistance, an armor-piercing, copper-jacketed .50 caliber round with muzzle-velocity of 2,000 mph is torn to shreds despite being fired only ten ft. from the water (23). Fourteen inches was the width of steel box columns in the towers. Could that bullet pierce one side of a steel column, break through and still have enough energy and mass to break through the other side?

These two facts alone falsify the fraudulent analysis perpetrated by NIST and the defendants about “aircraft impact damage,” as labeled in NCSTAR 1-2. The word “impact” occurs 1,645X in NCSTAR 1-2, as if repetition makes it so. Impact means “the striking of one body against another; a collision; the effect of one thing upon another.” Neither the defendants nor NIST offer proof that there were such impacts.

In fact, multiple videos show a 767 image penetrating WTC2 and disappearing without any damage whatever. As professional photographer Evan Fairbanks remarked to ABC’s Peter Jennings a few minutes after 5:00 pm ET on 9/11, “…it just disappeared like a bad special effect” https://videopress.com/v/SqpK1T1j. There was no collision between skyscraper and airliner. And there are no smashed aircraft parts visible in the gash in the building, which was also too small to swallow a 767. Or to repeat, the depicted openings are too small to permit passage of a Boeing 767. The WTC1 hole was approximately 125 feet wide in terms of severed columns and under 40 feet tall. The WTC2 hole was even smaller, with a width of only about 106 feet by my measure in severed columns, or two-thirds of that required to swallow a 767 whole (paragraph 36). Nor were there airplane parts present below the gash.

There are dozens of other flaws in the 10,000 pages of NCSTAR 1-2. To date, no proof of the hijacking of flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 has been forthcoming. Instead, we are offered the four cleanest crash sites in aviation history, even though each Boeing 767 has 3.1 million parts yet there was almost no airplane debris at the WTC. The wreckage at all four 9/11 sites was virtually non-existent. The government has issued no “white paper” to prove its case, the 9/11 Commission made no attempt to prove that the accused Muslim men did the attacks, nor did NIST and the defendants investigate and prove what happened on 9/11. Instead, the establishment presupposed its official conspiracy theory was true and applied make-up as required (paragraph 28).

Vibrations reaching sensitive seismograms from the north tower event registered a 0.9 equivalent magnitude earthquake at 8:46:26 EDT according to Lamont-Doherty, too small to be felt on the ground, and an even smaller 0.7 magnitude at 9:02:54 EDT for the south tower event (26). These facts raise a problem: the alleged plane at the south tower hit at 100 mph greater speed than the north tower “plane,” according to NIST and the defendants. Kinetic energy increases as the square of speed, and 100 additional mph would increase kinetic energy by 50%, only trivially reduced by the alleged 3-ton lower weight of FL 175 versus FL 11. Therefore, the south tower event should have had much greater force and impact, according to the official “speed” story by NIST and the defendants, yet Lamont-Doherty registered a substantially smaller Richter value than the first impact (paragraph 29).

Even if most of a Boeing, for the sake of argument, could punch through steel composing 37% of the surface area of each tower wall, braced by steel spandrel belts and the lateral edges of six+ steel/concrete floors, without the aluminum plane breaking apart at the wall and floor edges, within 60 feet the Flight 11 plane would have collided with the robust core of the north tower with its 47 massive steel, cross-braced columns. That implies 99 feet of airplane still outside the building if its nose (impossibly intact) made contact with the powerful core. United Flight 175 would have collided with the south tower’s core within 37 feet, just 7 feet longer than the distance of a 1st-&-10-yards-to-go in American football. That short distance implies 122 feet of aircraft would remain outside the building if the nose or its pieces struck the core. It is impossible, in other words, for an aluminum airliner of 159 feet to run into such a dense concentration of structural steel within such a short distance in a massive steel/concrete tower and leave no trace of visible aircraft debris in each hole and enormous pieces of 767 outside the building. The story NIST and the defendants tell and animate is an absurd proposition (paragraph 38).

The twin tower events were the two most non-violent “collisions” in the history of collisions. There were no collisions, no impacts, just alleged “entry” into the twin towers, followed by explosions. Such a depiction violates basic laws of mechanics and motion (paragraph 44).

The alleged 767s would have weighed approximately 140 tons. Five floors in the upper levels of the Twin Towers would have weighed at least 14,000 tons or 100x as much as a 767 and its load (39). Tons and tons of braced structural steel and concrete would destroy the airplane and leave a substantial portion of the plane wreckage below the two impact zones and in the holes. NIST simulations actually display shredded airplane parts exiting the impact hole and being showered around the tower interior as if each plane were shredded while simultaneously putting huge gashes in exterior walls and interior floors. Yet NIST and the defendants furnish no evidence of shredded airplane parts in the holes, below the holes, or in the WTC plaza (paragraph 48).

The flaws go on and on. On pg. 70 of 298 NIST asserts: “The insulation applied to the floor trusses above and the columns was scraped off by shrapnel-like aircraft debris and building wall fragments over a wedge almost 100 ft wide at the north face of the tower and 50 ft wide at the south end of the building core.” I cannot resist commenting on this claim! The entire war on terror, at home and abroad, rests on the claim that Muslim hijackers flew airliners into iconic buildings, and “aircraft impact damage” and fires led to complete destruction of the twin towers. NIST and the defendants, some 200 experts strong, spent $20 million and 3 years to embellish this story: airliners disappeared inside the steel towers by severing the dense lattice works of steel and steel-reinforced concrete, while also shredding themselves to shrapnel, thereby removing fire-resistive insulation and jet fuel/office fires then destroyed the WTC! Anyone pushing this singular theory of what happened in quasi-identical fashion at each tower would have to have extraordinary evidence to back it up. What evidence do NIST and the defendants supply that airplane/building impacts could turn airplanes pieces into shrapnel that, in turn, could strip mass quantities of thermal insulation from columns and trusses in the towers? Nothing valid. First, a real aluminum airplane would mostly crumple outside, making such fine shredding impossible, as argued in this affidavit. An airplane and its parts have more material integrity than to shred into shrapnel.42 Can NIST and the defendants point to other aviation accidents in history that delivered such “shrapnel”? No historical examples were cited. This will be explored in discovery. Second, there is no evidence that such fine shredding, even if we entertain the idea for the sake of argument, could significantly damage or strip fire-resistive insulation. NIST’s 12-gauge custom-barrel “shotgun” tests—I am not making this up—failed to show proof of concept even if we assumed there was a real airplane “crash,” as argued by Kevin Ryan 42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrapnel 40 below.43 Third, in “four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation and test conditions, NIST found “…in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over 2 hours” (pg. 43 of 298), so insulation or no insulation, there is no scientific case for collapse from structural impact and fires. Fourth, extensive fires in the north tower in February 1975 had already demonstrated “proof of concept” that the towers were highly resistant to fires (paragraph 50).

Thousands of crashes and collisions have occurred daily throughout history. Crashes are mundane. The elementary physics of these interactions between bodies have never been known to vary. All of them have obeyed the basic laws of physics (paragraph 56), except on 9/11 according to NIST. Well, that’s enough on this issue for now. You can find the full 81 paragraphs here https://nomoregames.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/080128_reynolds93aff.pdf. Also see https://nomoregames.net/2008/09/19/reynolds-answers-judge-daniels-dismissal/.

7. The destruction of evidence, such as the quick removal of steel debris, is often brought up. How do you think this impacted the investigation?

It did not happen. This is another nonsense claim designed to make us believe there were mountains of steel debris to remove. There wasn’t. Most of the towers were converted to fine powder since dustification eliminated most of the steel. As Dr. Wood wrote, “Impossible as it may seem, most of the steel from those towers also vanished, literally turned into dust. From Day One of clearing ground zero, around-the-clock photos of the demolition were taken. Did you see any photos of the 3000 truckloads of steel being driven away? Neither did I”…[However,] “A few surviving massive steel members were completely convoluted. Can anyone still think these incredible, impossibly-contorted shapes were the result of a jet-fueled, relatively low-temperature, fire?” (p. 484). See chapter 21, pp. 455-76 for details, including dozens of photos. “…large amounts of dirt [were] regularly trucked in and trucked out from the site for months and years following 9/11” (p. 490). The purpose? Suppress persistent “fumes” defined as “fine particulate suspended in the air, …of unknown cause and mechanism” (p. 491).

Further, consider that “…we find an absence of buckled columns in the ‘rubble pile’…No matter what hypothetical fire event is posited, it cannot explain the ‘rolled up carpets’…Similarly, a gravity collapse with or without heat will not cause this type of deformation during failure”…[nor will] bombs, a nuclear explosive, cutting torches, thermite, thermate, super thermate, spray-on thermite, or nano-thermite.” Finally, “…it is impossible not to conclude that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers came about through a form of directed energy technology” (p. 475).

8. Could you discuss the presence of thermite or other incendiary materials found in World Trade Center dust samples?

This is more nonsense. Immediately I think of V.I. Lenin’s maxim: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” While some advocates of “thermite and other incendiary materials” may simply be mistaken, I believe that excuse cannot fly for most of them because they are knowledgeable enough to know this thesis is absolute rubbish. Motive? Let’s be honest: they are “on the take.”

Dr. Wood’s book kills off thermite on pp. 122-26. First, “thermite is a welding material, not an explosive…instead [it] operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures…can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet…Copper thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries” (p 122). “A classic military use for thermite is disabling artillery pieces” (p. 123). Second, “There is no evidence that thermite, thermate, super thermite, or nano-enhanced thermite have ever been used to bring down major buildings…thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers. There is no proof of concept…” (p. 124).

But what about a report that “thermitic material” was found in dust samples from lower Manhattan after 9/11/01? What the heck is “thermitic material?” Dr. Wood patiently explains: “Presumably, the term refers to the ingredients of thermite, which is a substance made of aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust).” And guess what the Twin Towers were made of? Steel with aluminum cladding. “Steel is a term used for iron to which between 0.02 to 1.7% carbon has been added…We know a large portion of the towers was turned to dust (see Chapter 9, Dustification) [and] iron dust in atmospheric conditions will immediately rust. So it is natural and to be expected that materials the buildings were made of would be found in the nano-dust of their remains. The surprising thing would be if this nano-dust from the buildings did not contain ‘thermitic material’” (p. 124). That is a QED folks.

9. How do you view the testimony of first responders who described explosions before and during the towers' collapse?

Dr. Wood deals with this issue in chapter 7. “Many witnesses reported hearing explosions. But the sound of an explosion does not necessarily mean that a bomb was detonated. Everything that goes ‘boom’ is not necessarily a bomb” (p. 110). Yes, explosions occurred. One source was oxygen bottles or SCOTT air-paks, mounted on the backs of first responders, “they were exploding,” said firefighter Patrick Sullivan. Another source was exploding vehicles, some 1,400 strong: “I mean, the cars started cooking off, they started going off, boom, boom, boom, boom” said EMT Michael D’Angelo, among others (p. 111). There were also horizontal plumes or squibs below the initial “collapse wave” in WTC1 during the top-down destruction of 8-9 seconds (p. 111, Figure 106). In a pancake collapse “all of the building’s contents, including air, must be expelled outward at a rapid rate” (p. 111). Also, “in a skyscraper, the water pressure on upper floors is typically lower than on lower floors due to the force of gravity, meaning that as water travels up the building, it loses pressure with increasing height; to combat this, most skyscrapers use booster pumps and pressure regulating systems to ensure adequate water pressure on all levels, often utilizing rooftop water tanks to maintain consistent pressure throughout the building.(fn.)

10. In analyzing NORAD’s response failures, do you believe the delayed interception of hijacked planes points to incompetence or something more deliberate?

There were NO hijacked planes to intercept. Oh, and yes, that was certainly the plan in order to avoid all the problems of flying real Boeing 767s into the TT, including watching the airliners shatter against the twin towers plus the absence of Muslim hijackers which was crucial to justify launching the invasion of seven Muslim countries within five years. Anyone can find my “trump-tight” case for no planes here: https://nomoregames.net/2023/03/10/the-911-airplane-magic-show/. To add the coup de grace, see Dr. Wood’s video analysis of flight 587 which shows, among other things, that jet liners cannot exceed 400 knots per hour near sea level without falling apart: “Dr. Judy Wood Destroys the 9/11 Plane Fraud” here:

https://videopress.com/v/AUqlOeId

11. Could you comment on the role of war games and military exercises that coincidentally took place on the morning of 9/11?

What makes you think it was all “coincidentally”? The more confusion the better from the criminals’ point of view. As Jim Marrs wrote in his The Terror Conspiracy (2006), p. 168: In The 9/11 Commission Report “Only one small footnote mentioned the “Vigilant Guardian” [ironic appellation, no?] war games exercises which many feel were responsible for the confusion within the FAA and NORAD on 9/11.”

12. How do you interpret the Pentagon’s damage pattern and the absence of larger aircraft debris in photos and footage?

There was no plane crash at the Pentagon. To repeat, 9/11 had “the four cleanest crash sites in aviation history.” Let me tell you a personal story about this. On the morning of 9/11, my future to-be-bride Patricia was a manager at the Hospice of Northern Virginia and one of her RNs was driving to visit a patient near the Pentagon and she called in and said, “They’re bombing the Pentagon, do I continue to see patients in the area?” Pat replied, “No, the news says an airplane ran into the Pentagon. Return to the office, we may be needed at the Arlington Hospital.”

There may have been a fly over the Pentagon but no plane crash. There are dozens of problems with that official story, and here are a few. Sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries adjacent to the Pentagon and in the Washington area were never activated despite the earlier attacks on the WTC, so the most powerful military in the world was “unable to protect its own headquarters,” as Thierry Meyssan wrote in 9/11: The Big Lie, 2002 (pp. 15-6). The hole in the Pentagon was woefully undersized at maximum 20 feet wide to swallow a Boeing 757, wingspan 125 feet.

As your question states, there was no significant aircraft debris until the next day when a few pieces were spread around. We never even saw a video of the “757 wreckage.” The physics of the official narrative are impossible, for example, a 757 cannot fly 500 km/hr near sea level without falling apart in a steep dive. Then we have the issue of whether the so-called ground effect would prevent landing the airliner at such speeds. Also, in a 45-degree-angle crash, the starboard wing/engine would hit first, thereby spin the plane clockwise (leftward), and fling the tail section off. Yet such a straight 45-degree line was allegedly sustained through three rings? Impossible.

Eye witness testimony includes the famous “no plane” statement of CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre: “…from my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed any where near the Pentagon…” https://archive.org/embed/911VideoPentagonNoPlane1. Other witnesses said a bomb had gone off and they could smell cordite. Another famous witness was April Gallop who was buried in rubble but escaped with her son. In hospital she was visited by unidentified men who kept insisting “…that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over. But I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people” (Marrs, p. 31). There is evidence that DEW caused the damage but establishing that would require an article of its own. Finally consider Hani Hanjour the alleged hijacker who piloted Flight 77 yet could not demonstrate enough skill to rent a puddle jumper (Cessna 172) three weeks earlier. And yet he performed a high speed 270-degree dive towards the Pentagon, impossible for both pilot and airliner? These revolting lies reveal how stupid government psychos think we are.

13. Many people are unaware of the destruction of World Trade Center 6 and its significance. Could you shed light on this lesser-known aspect?

WTC6 was an 8-story building just north of WTC1. While the building was basically “hollowed out” by DEW on 9/11, “During the cleanup of the WTC site, the remaining portions of WTC6 needed to be demolished. Engineers did not use explosives for fear of damaging the bathtub wall (or slurry wall)…Instead, workers attached cables to the remaining structure and rocked it back and forth until it toppled over.” This event was featured in the PBS special, America Rebuilds. A demolition worker remarked, “We have to be very careful how we demolish building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry wall” Another said, “It’s not every day you try to pull down an eight-story building with cables” (p. 58).

Dr. Wood points out the irony of it all: “They were all worried about damaging the bathtub by bringing down the fragments of an eight-story building with a few sticks of dynamite, yet the alleged gravity-driven collapse of two 110-story buildings were nothing to worry about?” (pp. 58-9). So much for the nonsensical official narrative.

14. Are there any key figures within the government or intelligence agencies that you believe hold responsibility for the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission, led by former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean and House representative Lee H. Hamilton, was appointed to answer “questions surrounding 9/11” but of course its real purpose was to cover up the truth about 9/11. The Commission closed August 21, 2004 and it did an admirable job of covering up the truth, largely due to the Commission’s Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow.

My chief suspects for full knowledge about 9/11 would start with then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But of course this is speculative because I have no inside information about the identity of the perpetrators. Unfortunately, we have yet to be blessed with an Edward Snowden to “rat out” the guilty nor are we likely to see such a whistleblower any time soon, if ever. Maybe in a death bed confession or two some day. As you know, I filed a so-called Qui Tam case against 20 contractors who produced the NIST report and discovery under oath against them would have been delicious but my case filed in the Southern District of New York was dismissed.

The recent #13 answer in our ChatGPT and 9/11 “Operation Headfake” (https://nomoregames.net/2025/03/03/headfake-2-0-drinks-with-a-chatgpt-9-11-operative/) project names Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney as ideological proponents of a “new Pearl Harbor,” Phillip Zelikow and Cass Sunstein as psychological engineers, Dov Zakheim and John Alexander as technical architects, and Dick Cheney as the high official who said, “Do it.” Barbara Honegger adds more names within Jim Marrs’ book, pp. 460-62, plus Kevin Ryan, Another Nineteen (2013).

15. What do you believe are the most critical documents or testimonies that have been suppressed or classified regarding 9/11?

Let’s look at the “testimony” of Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 Commission which occurred in the oval office (White House) on April 29, 2004. “A Memorandum For The Record” was prepared by the Commission’s Executive Director Phillip D. Zelikow, a Bush insider and author of the worthless 9/11 report. A Memorandum was released to the public on November 9, 2022, an 18-year delay, under pressure by the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB).

First, note that Bush never wanted a 9/11 Commission. Second, he appointed Henry Kissinger as chairman but cancelled that under public pressure. Third, he did not want to “testify” alone, so Cheney had to accompany him. Fourth, neither Bush nor Cheney were sworn in to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under pain of a perjury conviction or at least public shaming. Fifth, a transcript was never released.

No Commissioner ever asked a tough question. All were premised on acceptance of the official narrative and focused on who did what in response to 9/11 and how to provide improved security in the future. Some excerpts convey the flavor of the “meeting”: Commissioner Ben-Veniste thanked the President and Vice President for agreeing to meet with the full commission. He said that the President and the Commission were on the same team. They wanted to deal with as many of these conspiracy themes as possible. Their goal was to make the country safer. Uh huh.

The President said he was responsible: This was the job of the President. He had to pick a good group, then expect them to do their job with the right strategy. Killing the terrorists was the best strategy. It was the only way to do it. Kill them before they kill us. There would be no negotiations, no peace treaty with these people. They are killers, cold-blooded killers who would not hesitate for a moment.

The President said it had been a good experience to meet with the whole Commission.

Chairman Kean said a meeting like this could only happen in a democracy.

The President quickly reviewed what he intended to say about the meeting to the press. Chairman Kean described the similar, and equally non-substantive, plan for Commission comments. The meeting then concluded.

So what do you expect? The job of government commissions is to cover up the truth. This has been true ever since the attack on Pearl Harbor if not the preceding millennia, worldwide. And kill? The US government has murdered some 4.5 million people on its rampage mostly on the Muslim world since 9/11. The evil consequences of the 9/11 psyop continue.

16. What are your thoughts on Dr. Judy Wood’s research, and do you find any aspects of her work compelling or problematic?

Compelling is putting it mildly. As you can tell by my previous answers, in my opinion it is a superb, thorough, forensic investigation, a stand-alone book of the young century. She is a genius. Anyone who wants to know what happened on 9/11 must read and truly absorb Where Did The Towers Go?

17. As you continue your research, how can readers stay updated on your work or contribute to the ongoing investigation?

Visit my blog nomoregames.net. Recently my friend John Herold has contributed some very entertaining analyses about the truth hidden behind the official 9/11 narrative. https://nomoregames.net/chatgpt-and-9-11-operation-headfake/ Such visits allow anyone to keep up with my work and there is no paywall to surmount. Another interesting source is https://www.drjudywood.com/oldindex.htm which includes articles I co-authored with Dr. Wood prior to publication of Where Did The Towers Do? in 2010.

In terms of contributing to the ongoing investigation, if you are so inclined, just join in and contribute in any way you find most productive. The intellectual/political marketplace is open, no barriers to entry.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.

1. Labor and the Austrian School | No More Games