WATCH: The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 – Jon Cole: "how did the towers fall?"

In 2011, experts from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4 day period.

Jon Cole is a professional engineer and sometime expert witness. He has made numerous videos of experiments that demonstrate his contention that the official explanation for the collapse of the three WTC towers is in violation of Newtonian physics.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 5:35 AM

Random impressions:
. . . because “empirical facts,” eh.
. . .Jon Cole: the humble idiot who proved the unprovable!
. . . Popular Mechanics debunks itself debunking 9/11 myths by omission and historical amnesia: “Its never ever been done, ever, because it can’t be done! ” and then “Well, that’s a story we made up back in the 30s. But we don’t make up our stories anymore. Well, maybe a little bit because we do patriotic science.”
. . . National Geographic for dummies, not as in “explained” for dummies, although Jon does a brilliant job of that, too, but as in literally a magazine for dummies. Does anyone read the magazine anymore? If you do, you need to stop . . . now! Don’t read it, don’t watch it. (Here, however, I must momentarily digress, because if you don’t break your habit with N.G., you will come to believe that all the state sponsored terrorism to which Syria is being subjected is the result, no, not of naked Western imperial aggression, but of Global Warming! See the link below for one disgusting example. We now return to our regular programing –) And the disparaging smugness in the tone of the voice of that woman narrating for N.G. in it’s segment debunking the claim that “thermite” could be used for anything other than making a lot of sparks, simply adorable. I do like children even when they are adults . . .
Now to disgust you, as promised, and I do apologize for the digression, but I couldn’t pass this up since Jon did bring up National Geographic :
And merely to counter the claims of the foregoing so as to ensure that no one takes those claims too seriously:
. . . explosions heard and talked about aplenty in the media on the day, and T.V. personalities confidently asserting the fact that the Towers had to have been brought down by explosives . . . because, well, the “evidence” was overwhelmingly “evident.” On the next day, however, the media started telling Mark Walsh’s version of events and it’s been 19 Arabs with box-cutters ever since. But we know that’s just a fantasy and a Big Lie that has literally cost the lives of millions . . .
Thank you for this, too, OffG. I’d never heard of Jon Cole. He’s in my bookmarks now.

Sep 13, 2016 9:40 PM

Another thing that puzzles me is, why bother to go to all the trouble of rigging WTC 7 for demolistion at all? What’s the point or reason for doing that? Hadn’t they already ‘made their point’ with the Twin Towers?

Sep 14, 2016 7:50 AM
Reply to  michaelk

@michaelk — that’s a question that we can’t answer because we can’t mind-read.
What we can do is focus on the hard science and follow facts where they take us.
What we can establish is what did not happen.
Fire alone (the US govt’s version) can’t sever scores of steel columns simultaneously.
Fire alone can’t cause seven-second pulverisation of tall structures, which is actually
reassuring to all who live and work in tall skyscrapers.
Focusing on the best evidence is what the best criminologists and forensics experts do and many cases are solved this way, even cold cases.

Sep 13, 2016 9:38 PM

I think it’s a very interesting piece of analysis, well presented too. I just have difficulty accepting what he said at about 56 minutes in, where he quotes Ryan about the planes hitting the floors that had recently been refurbished. Cole says that perhaps this was because those floors had been structurally prepared for demolition, weakened, waiting for the planes to hit and finish the job, presumably.
It’s the logistics that puzzle me. Why bother with yet another level of complexity, hitting the towers at precisely those places. Cole agrees with Ryan that this wasn’t a coincidence, but something that was deliberately planned in advance. Phew, the mind boggles at the skills required to organize and carry out such a precision attack, using planes like darts hitting the bullseye on a dartboard.
It probably goes without saying that if all that’s true, the planes hitting a pre-determined spot on the Twin Towers, then this surely rules out the idea that Saudi amateur pilots would have the skills to accomplish such a difficult piece of precision flying using an airliner. This would mean the Saudis weren’t flying the planes at all. Then who was controlling the planes? Are we to assume that the were being flown by remote control, like giant drones by someone else? This idea of the hitting the bullseye, a specific target area, seems incredible to me, adding yet another level of complexity and speculation to this whole set of unexplained events.

Sep 13, 2016 5:13 PM

Well, if it was nano-thermite, the only people admitting to manufacturing the stuff in 2002 in the USA was The Naval Surface Warfare Center – Indian Head Division. Conveniently, their record keeping protocols saw all pre-2002 records of private-sector partnerships destroyed in 2009 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=113766.0 )
It is clear that the most likely technology used involved sol-gel methods, since both silicon and carbon were found in the nano-thermite powders at the WTC site.
Whilst there may be other military organisations outside the US who were also capable of supplying industrial-level amounts of sol-gel-derived nano-thermite explosives, Suspect 1 as a supplier of such material should be the Naval Surface Warfare Center.
I wonder whether there are any whistleblowers out there who can confirm whether NSWC supplied nano-thermite explosives to the CIA in 2001 and whether any CIA operatives will confirm that they installed it into the WTC buildings in summer 2001?
Of course, on 09/10/2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a $2.3trn black hole in the Pentagon’s finances, hard-copy details of which were conveniently pulverised by the attack on 09/11, which made a direct hit on the budget analysts’ office. So one might need a whistleblower from the Pentagon to confirm that funds were being siphoned off for the CIA to buy nano-thermite. Assuming that the Pentagon were so dilatory in record keeping that they didn’t have at least two sets of duplicate accounts hosted on remote servers a few km underground in Colorado, New Mexico or wherever……..perhaps in 2001, it was too early for computerised budget records in the US? I find it unlikely as we were running Excel financial spreadsheets as MBA students in 1998….
Alternatively of course the CIA may have been gathering billions of dollars in drug money through its interactions with Afghan warlords prior to 9/11. But another whistleblower high up in the CIA would probably be needed to confirm that. Because none of that money has ever been officially acknowledged by any public official in the USA…..
Being of suspicious mind, I would also suggest some forensic investigations as to whether the State of Israel had any sol-gel nano-thermite manufacturing facilities which shipped explosives in return for war in Iraq? Very nasty of me to suggest that, as no Zionist would ever kill anyone or initiate any war, but I am merely suggesting suspects to be eliminated from enquiries rather than apportioning guilt.
I think we can move beyond ‘How were the towers brought down?’ onto ‘Who commissioned it, who supplied the raw materials, who installed it and who co-ordinated the official cover-up?’

Sep 14, 2016 2:27 PM
Reply to  rtj1211

Great post!

Sep 13, 2016 3:50 PM

Talking of Toronto: there are plans currently to build two condo towers at the junction of Yonge St and Bloor. At 300 metres they will be second only to the CN Tower in height.
There are likely to be hearings, involving the Ontario Municipal Board (aka the Developer’s Friend) before the plans are authorised.
Now the question is “Why, when such plans are discussed, does nobody among the public ever object to the danger that airliners (the site is minutes away from two international airports) hitting one of these towers must pose?”
It would be interesting to see what officialdom would make of a case citing the 9/11 Commission’s reports as evidence of the dangers of such buildings collapsing as a result of fire? Or will the developer argue that such fears are ridiculous because a collapse just could not happen?