Building 7 Challenge

Successful 9/11 ‘Building-7 Challenge’ Ends With Unlawful Arrest at U of Florida

Alt Media Personality Bob Tuskin demonstrates college football fans awake to 9/11


Harold Saive
Veterans Today

This video documents Tuskin’s arrest as he was following orders to vacate the University of Florida property on “trespassing” charges falsely alleged by Alachua County Sheriff deputy, Lt. Richard Lalonde. Tuskin later discovered that Lalonde has a record civil
rights abuses including a previous lawsuit. Tuskin secured an attorney to prosecute a case of false arrest but has not made a decision to follow through. Tuskin’s reluctance is based on fear that Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell’s deputies will continue to harass him and his family. Videographer, Ed Sanders is a UF Alum but was also unlawfully ordered to leave taxpayer supported, state property at the University of Florida, Ben Hill Griffin stadium grounds.

Deputy Lalonde revealed his disdain for due process and civil rights when he justified Tuskin’s arrest with a deliberately, inflammatory remark:

“You guys are doing conspiracy theory stuff so you should expect this.”

26 thoughts on “Successful 9/11 ‘Building-7 Challenge’ Ends With Unlawful Arrest at U of Florida”

  1. I think the CD of WTC7 is probably the least controversial of all the events on that day. It doesn’t help to show once again Capt. Ruvolo describe rivers of molten metal. There is an unwarranted and prevalent conflation of the towers and 7. Because of the obvious nature of 7’s demolition, when has there ever been a classic CD that produced such molten metal? The use of this witness is suggesting that the attested presence of molten metal is somehow evidence of a classic CD. All of the photographic evidence of molten metal is easily colorized with red and yellow. There are two of such that I’m aware of. One is the crane shovel and the other has two versions; the one colorized and the other of workmen obviously using a light to look into a pit. Other pictures show the basement with no hint of mm. They have been fooled who think there was mm on 9.11.

    I,m qualifying CD with classic because the towers are a CD of a whole other species. So much fakery has been demonstrated in the videos of the twins destruction that even what looks like the approximately 60 story “spire” turning to dust is suspect. That goes for the whole lot of vids of what is termed by many as collapse. We see what appears to be much falling debris turn to dust before or as they approach the ground.

    What is going on? Once I came upon the enormous evidence of fakery it still was nearly impossible for me to entertain the possibility that even the vids of the destruction of the towers were fake. That they were destroyed there is no question. Perhaps the only reason that the perps would disguise the actual demolition with a high tech CGI mask is to boost the gain on shock and awe. The actual demo was probably not spectacular enough, and or, looked too much like 7. Something may have gone wrong on the 7 event. But it stands as the simplest and undeniable evidence that the official conspiracy tale is just that.

    We can’t go into the other possibility that some sort of molecular dissociation by scalar interferometry was used without taking Judy Woods work into account. No-one goes there without a thick skin against the cruelest attacks of ridicule and disrespect. Assuming that the bulk of her work is spot on, I think she is in error about 7 when she attributes to it the same technology as she does the towers. But I’m on the fence and want to get off. Any insights would be appreciated.

    1. The fact that there was molten metal was more than amply testified by firemen, police, investigators, video evidence, etc.
      this is the very first post I have run across questioning this fact,
      making a sensational claim requires sensational evidence to back that kind of statement up

    2. I believe Dr. Woods strongest point “dustificatioin” is that there is a great lack of rubble in the foot prints of all the buildings that collapsed. As she asks “where did all the concrete and steel go”?

      1. From what I have researched ‘ The hutchinson effect ‘ which has been used by the Military, have all these componants… twisted metal, dustification, paper staying intact.. burning but no heat.. molten metal… So why has this been overlooked.. I am no scientist, but common sense can tell you,- new technology is the answer here, directed energy. that is my opinion..

    3. There is confusion about the highest temperatures, I agree. Initially Mark Loiseaux of CD inc claimed to have seen molten steel below ground at the twin towers but later seemed to detract and admit he was a second source.
      I dont know in the case of 7.
      But high and longlasting temperatures are a fact and such things need no new type of technology. If you have any scientific background you ought to know small nukes are a possibility while Judy Woods stuff is BS and the evidence she uses is contrary to fact: the pulverization ‘of everything’ wasnt so extensive, a lot of it was simply removed.
      If you dont have a scientific background you ought to bring it up with someone who does. I Believe Judy Wood is used for coverup whether she understands it or not. And I suggest she knows and knows she is allowed to make money in the process while providing cover for the mighty. If this was about getting to the truth the nuclear explanation would have been given much more room. And Woods sensational claims would have been debunked by establishment experts.

      Particularly pertinent is the establishing of NNSA in 2000 just in time to monitor radioactivity in the area to obtain a baseline for reference and after 9/11 they found 80 hotspots of anomalously high radioactivity when comparing with that baseline…
      The NNSA staff needed radiation protection when they sifted out the victims body parts far away from wtc at Freshkills. So the rubble was radioactive. They didnt cover the skin but the eyes and ears. It makes sense to cover the ears to avoid radioactive dust from settling inside so a normal quick shower does the job after work. But if it was something like bc-warfare ingredients capable of penetrating the skin they should have covered everything. Obviously radioactivity may penetrate but the levels were under control, provided they followed protocol and that included earcovers. The rescue workers wore dosimeters officially claimed to measure something else but who believes that.

      1. Peter, Your mention of Mark Loizeaux was useful to me. Here is what he said to a Mr. Bryan:
        “I didn’t personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with.” (Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc.) Found it here:

        Of course I disagree that ” high and longlasting temperatures are a fact”. There was plenty of fuming though which made it easier for the fakers to add the appearance of heat. Please check out these sites:

        I admit that the spectacular appearance of the buildings disintegrating looked more like a nuclear event than any sort of regular demolition. But the behavior of debris turning to dust in mid air is not the effect of mini bombs. The molecular disintegration that Wood is referencing is said by her to be be a process that extracts or neutralizes the bond energy of metal atoms. “It may be a scalar interferometer: tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their interference zone extracts energy at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding forces in the metal and it begins to fall apart. This hypothesis necessarily involves secret technology, so it is not a proven but possible explanation for the data”

        One more citing to drive us crazy is this: That if Dr. Woods work, which is possibly based on fake evidence that escaped her detection, and has caused her to misinterpret the thing, then, Simon Shack’s work which ably demonstrates video fakery on 9.11, but perhaps goes too far, is the only other explanation. September Clues: Can they be harmonized?

        As for the National Nuclear Security Agency, I haven’t got to the issue yet. However if NIST can say with a straight face that WTC7 was destroyed by fire than I wouldn’t automatically trust what NNSA had to say. Thanks for the post.

      2. Can you explain why the seismic scale didn’t register a huge collapse.. or was the removal of all the steel done before it hit the ground.!. you are making a lot of assumtions.. establishment experts are not the best people to ask… You didn’t mention the hurricane ..out at sea that did a perculiar turn… more power to assist.. lots of questions here. I noticed you left out the Dr – refering to Dr Judy Wood.. why was that..she obviously has gained she knows what she is talking can try and explain away things because most people do not have a science background.. I think this goes much deaper.. but most people can see through the lies sorounding this event.. The secret must not get out.!

  2. The issue here is not the method used to destroy the building, but the fact that someone was ARRESTED for talking about the fact that the building was destroyed.

    Arrested for simply TALKING.

    1. beachgirl,

      Your point is well taken. But this website is about liberty to the furthermost forms of it. Central to that cause, what could be more relevant than discussion and analysis of crucial deception. I don’t automatically trust that this video is anything more than a vehicle for the falsehoods that are pasted on after the emotional and provoking display of police harassment, and I don’t think it’s productive to insist on a single dimension of a multicontextual problem. Whatever leads up to unfair police actions is relevant and that includes the mass of propaganda that’s foisted on law enforcement. For all we know about the mindset of the cops, how would we know they were doing any less than “righteously” terminating what has been characterized to them as seditious activity? Those same cops are unlikely to visit this site and find out what they’ve been told is a load. We need more people reaching out to them with the best information we have. We don’t need to prove that the towers were destroyed by a weapon formerly only referred to in science fiction, but there is nothing to preclude discussion of the probability that that is exactly the case, excepting evidence to the contrary.

      Someone said the lie is different at every level. That and that the lies are usually vectored on some degree of truth. Truth and the universal recognition of the importance of truth is what motivates many who post here. If something is used to justify suspension of the first amendment, shouldn’t that something be analyzed. If the Sandy Hook psyop is used to disarm the public by Institutional Psychiatric means, both in the 2nd amendment sense and the despotism of the Mental Health Establishment’s aggression against due process and it’s procedural safeguards, is it a digression to explore both how it was done and the rationale for it being done.

      We have the fact that the building was destroyed as you said. But the truth in the video is that it is what it looks like, a controlled demolition. If the makers of the vid didn’t go beyond that point with bogus proofs for a hot zone that it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be doubting so much.

      1. And if you were at the campus saying that instead of typing it into your keyboard, you would have been arrested, cuffed and hauled off to jail.

        That fact is not debatable. But debating the building? That can get you arrested.

        Do you believe he was breaking the law? That is the real question here.

    1. Perhaps I can make it a little easier for you Sunjay. I have those pictures of the two versions of the workmen peering into a pit where the one is colorized to appear hot and the other normal and appears to be a worklight. They are on my computer but I don’t think they will upload. Probably should sign up on WordPress and get rid of this lame gravatar to boot. So, I finally found the pair in comparison on this site: For a quick find go to end of page then scroll up about 6 pages. What do you think?

      1. I have no idea who the author is,
        but i cannot think of any reason why the handlers/perps would fake such an event, there is no reasonable theory for such a motive,
        I haven’t had a chance yet to look at every nuance of this argument
        but one phenomenon that has occurred are the multitude of stories that attempt to alter and or contradict early findings of 9/11 research,
        while some of this is a matter of getting more facts and piecing the puzzle together, some of it is meant to redirect researchers, to befuddle, to complicate the event, and are a result of the Intelligence communities doing their dirty work in public perception of these events,
        beware of the multitude of “new” 9\11 research that casts doubts on real evidence, unless their is hard evidence to back it up

        1. I personally find the eyewitness testimony rock solid as to the fact their was molten metal, this video has many testimonies from the original crew of police and firefighters at ground zero, along with videos of steam coming off the rubble and videos of the molten material

        2. Sunaj,
          I think the WTC7 demolition is so obvious that any motion to inform the general public might be most effective in that simplicity without necessarily going into things like molten metal. I didn’t start the molten metal psyop, and you can chalk it up to mere opinion if you want, but I sure don’t want to beat my head against a wall to prove that “there are NO pictures whatsoever of molten metal in the ruins at Ground Zero.” I watched the video you posted and their best effort was the video showing a zoomed in shot and the appearance of fire or whatever they are suggesting. You must be aware by now that digital compositing and layering are common techniques that have brought doubt to all digital videography, all digital stills. It’s become a guessing game whether digital evidence is authentic or not. We see lots of “smoke”, or is that fumes from a cool ongoing reaction of molecular dissociation. I can’t understand why someone, after studying the mind-blowing depths of deception that went into Shady Hook would be totally dumbfounded that firemen would lie about molten metal. Take another gander at Capt. Tuvolo as he verily reeks of shady intention. Compare the firemen in group to the phoney doctors of the Pulse psyop. Are we to be depending on expert authority that tells us what to think? Men and women in uniform making suggestions for the stupefied to believe. There are thoughtful non-experts who are alarmed that the same perps will clinch the conditions for the full monte of martial law and open-no-explanation police state, much worse than we see foreshadowed in the unreasonable arrest in the above video. Some are alarmed by the suspicion that they need another horrendous false flag to proceed, and all that business of faking molten metal and interjecting nonsense about mini nukes is merely experimental practice on the way to the next false flag of a false nuclear variety. I hope this helps as you ponder the motive. So please, help out and search out the evidence for yourself and stop demanding others do what you should. That’s a well known tactic of disinformation trolls. You aren’t that.

          Ok, so I think a time-out is in order. It is a puzzle as you say, and you are correct to be suspicious and on guard for those who deliberately muddy the waters. There is much more to consider on the site I posted. Here it is again:

        3. Dalton,

          I agree with you that the World Trade Center seven is an obvious demolition.

          What you’re missing here is no one said that was molten metal at world trade center seven.

          The big event was World Trade Center one and two which also affected the adjacent buildings.

          One thing I think we can agree on something spectacular happened which included some controlled demolition and something else very strange but even affected the cars is on the ground.

          Paper didn’t seem to burn but anything metal was affected severely much as a microwave does. which is simply a radiowave as everything is.

          I think we’re pretty much in agreeance.

          On a side note are you Professor Dalin from Florida? No offense if you’re not.

          One thing we do know all three buildings were controlled demolition.

  3. Dalin
    Yes video can be falsified,
    that however does not mean the videos of the molten steel are false, it does mean detracters are obligated to show clear proof of falsificationj, which i don’t see,
    but more to the point the most important proof are the eyewitnesses at the event, who are trained first responders, these are/were the same people that were harassed and threatened for telling what they saw at ground zero, I see absolutely no motive for these people to lie about what they saw and reported

    1. Correct suN,

      These people had no reason to lie and also many other first responders have none of their testimony ever included in the 911 report. There is your proof positive.

      Every eyewitness was disregarded and not included in the 911 report.

      There are no bombs, no molten metal, No real life eyewitness accounts included in the 911 report.

      They stuck to the original pancake theory from the first hour until today.

      They disregard all the anomalies and stick to the script.

      We laugh today how every bonehead has a manifesto in his back pocket. These clowns have passports raining from the sky in perfect condition and even left a briefcase in a bathroom with all the hijackers information.

      Completely laughable but has worked for 15 years.

  4. Ric,
    Thanks man. I was beginning to feel beleaguered. There was no reply button so I’m putting this at the top.

    Name is Dalin. I too am lysdesic. And no, I’m not Prof. Dalton from Florida. I have to pay special attention when working around electrical. Have only fried one inverter though.

    It was the video that brought in the firemen testimony after what was singularly about WTC7.

    1. Just say what you mean. That was just like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

      ” working around electrical?”.

      We can talk. Just don’t play some kind of intellect giant sh*t with me .

      I think we pretty much agree but you have a real hard time with the molten metal.

      I have no idea why? I don’t think you have some kind of agenda. Because I think in the end we all Agree 911 was a false flag.

      Or do we?

      Sorry if my sentences don’t hold up the Harvard standards.

      1. Ha ha I said axed and this dictation program refuses to acknowledge it. I thought it was common knowledge “asked” and “axed” where interchangeable.

        Of course I kid.

Comments subject to moderation