Presentation on theme: "Confronting the Deception: 9/11, NIST and the Road to Global Collapse Kevin Ryan Scholars for 9/11 Truth Come to Colorado Boulder and Denver, October 28."— Presentation transcript:
Confronting the Deception: 9/11, NIST and the Road to Global Collapse Kevin Ryan Scholars for 9/11 Truth Come to Colorado Boulder and Denver, October 28 th and 29 th, 2006
9/11: A Long String of Unprecedented Events and Absurdities ► Our nation’s air defenses effectively stood down ► Many coincidental military exercises ► Vast evidence of foreknowledge without anyone knowing ► Insider trading without insiders ► Plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11 ► Resistance to, and obstruction of, the investigations ► (Former?) CIA allies hate us for our freedoms ► Three tall buildings collapsed from fire on same day
Questioning an Ever-changing Story ► As a manager for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), I was fired for publicly questioning the government’s October 2004 report on the collapse of the WTC towers ► That report, generated by NIST*, is only one of several conflicting reports produced in the last five years, and even it continues to change ► All the official WTC explanations have come from those profiting from the War on Terror ► The FEMA and NIST reports are direct products of the Bush Administration (i.e. Bush Science) *National Institute of Standards and Technology
“Bush Science” ► The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals” Open letter from 9000+ scientists, currently including 49 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients ► “We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush Administration” Union of Concerned Scientists ► “[We] found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings” House Committee on Government Reform
Unprecedented Building Failures No tall buildings have ever collapsed from fire, but on 9/11, we’re told there were three No building exhibiting all the characteristics of demolition has ever NOT been a demolition 99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite outraged cries from public and fire experts
Demolition hypothesis? ► The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors, “It cascaded down like an implosion” ► “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building” -- Ronald Hamburger, structural engineer and later a contributor to FEMA and NIST reports ► British architect Bob Halvorson noted that the collapses were "well beyond realistic experience." ► But official investigations never considered demolition
Early support for the official WTC story ► “Experts” said jet fuel fires melted the steel BBC (Chris Wise, etc.) Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel) NOVA video (Matthys Levy) Henry Koffman from USC Tom Mackin from Univ. of Illinois Osama Bin Laden -- “I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building…” ► Temperatures exaggerated by media National Geographic Channel - 2,900 F A&E /History Channel - 2500 F
Official investigations into the collapse of the WTC buildings ► ASCE ► FEMA BPAT Turned ASCE investigation into an “assessment” Report released May 2002 ► Silverstein/Weidlinger report released October 2002 ► NIST Final draft 10/04…Final, final draft 6/05 First report 9/05…Responses to FAQs 8/06
ASCE Team = Murrah Team Initial ASCE team leaders (9/14/01) Gene Corley Charles Thornton Paul Mlakar Mete Sozen 4 others OKC Murrah building report authors Gene Corley Charles Thornton Paul Mlakar Mete Sozen ASCE says there are 1.5 million US engineers. Why so few when it comes to terrorism?
Alfred P. Murrah Building Alfred P. Murrah Building ► April 19, 1995 - Reinforced concrete building destoyed in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people Survivors reported multiple explosions Many media reports and witness accounts of un-detonated bombs FBI confiscated videos and would not release them ► May 5, 1995 - Memorial service with 300 people held 20 feet away from building foundation ► May 9, 1995 - Corley’s team arrives “Investigation” completed from 250 feet (1/2 block) away. Access only to drawings, samples from other buildings and photos They are not permitted to inspect any material from the OKC bombing crime scene. They were not even allowed to tour the site.
One Guy / One Truck bomb? ► May 18, 1995 – USAF Gen. Benton Partin to Congress: "I can say with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases." A series of tests done by USAF’s Wright Labs confirmed this conclusion. ► May 23, 1995 -- Murrah Building demolished, and rubble buried in a landfill guarded by security personnel. ► March 1996 -- Strategic Investment newsletter: "A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the Federal building in Oklahoma City last April was caused by five separate bombs” ► October 1997 – Corley, Mlakar, Sozen & Thornton release paper in support of the One Guy/One Bomb political story. Their entire argument is based on one piece of data – the size of the bomb crater - and that data was given to them.
Department Of Defense’s “Blast Mitigation for Structures Program” ► Formed in 1998 to provide DOD with expertise in explosive effects on buildings ► Funded at $10 million annually ► Committee chaired by Sozen with Corley and Thornton as members (and Mark Loizeaux) ► Blast consulting firms include ARUP, ARA, SG&H, Thornton- Tomasetti, Weidlinger
WTC - pre-determined conclusions Gene Corley knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, “I just didn’t know when it was going to happen”, said Corley (reported by St. Petersburg Times) Charles Thornton -- "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." (From Karl Koch’s book Men of Steel) Shankar Nair -- "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.” (Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001)
The first official leaders ► Gene Corley in charge of ASCE WTC investigation ► NYC put Thornton-Tomasetti in charge of site ► Richard Tomasetti (Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.” ► Sozen and Mlakar led the Pentagon investigation team
Restrictions on ASCE investigation ► No access to blueprints ► Not allowed to ask for help from public ► Team members threatened with dismissal for speaking to press ► No access to steel until first week of October ► FEMA obstruction
FEMA BPAT ► ASCE expanded and was named FEMA BPAT John Gross, NIST engineer with oil and gas history Therese McAllister, Greenhorne and O’Mara (G&O) Other DOD contractors (Arup, Hughes, SG&H, Weidlinger) ► When FEMA took over, $1 million was allocated, but only $100,000 was spent by December ► At the same time, Bush was telling us “It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month…”
By January, it was a half-baked farce Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine, said the “official investigation…is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.” Dick Cheney called Senate leader Tom Daschle and asked him to “limit the scope and overall review of what happened [on 9/11]”, claiming resources would be pulled from the War on Terrorism. President Bush met with Daschle privately and asked him to limit the investigation.
Who would design a building for plane crashes but forget the jet fuel fires? Eduardo Kausel – The WTC buildings were designed to withstand Boeing 707 impacts but were “never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next – a key design omission.” Loring Knoblauch (CEO of UL) – the jet fuel fires were not “reasonably foreseeable.” What? How would the planes get to the buildings? Who would really do this?
Not the WTC’s design Engineer Towers designed by John Skilling (Leslie Robertson worked for Skilling) Skilling had this to say in 1993 when asked if he considered plane crashes in his design. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.” City in the Sky, Glanz and Lipton
Where’s the fire? Windsor building, Madrid, February 2005 Twin towers shortly after WTC2 hit
FEMA findings ► April 2002 NOVA video with commentators Corley and Thornton ► Fireproofing easily blown off ► Floors collapsed ► Columns buckled outward ► May 2002 final FEMA report “a pancake-type of collapse of successive floors”
June 2002 – NIST drafts plan ► National Institute of Standards and Technology Directors are Presidential appointees ► First meeting included “Public” comments by Gene Corley Richard Tomasetti Shankar Nair Other contributors to official reports ► Charles Thornton later named to NIST’s Advisory Committee
October 2002 Silverstein / Weidlinger report ► Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti involved in study to establish Silverstein insurance claim ► Report results No floor failure of any kind Column failure only Directly contradicts FEMA report
They knew what happened from the start? ► ”Experts” Towering Inferno Steel melted ► FEMA Floor failure: “A pancake-type of collapse of successive floors” ► Silverstein/Weidlinger Column failure only ► NIST Final theory is mixed bag of sagging floors, softening core columns and external column bowing – apparently leading to pile driver collapse… (but the story remains flexible)
Characteristics of demolition - ignored ► Sudden onset ► Straight down ► Nearly free-fall speed ► Total collapse ► Sliced steel ► Pulverization of concrete ► Dust clouds ► Horizontal ejections (squibs) ► Demolition rings ► Sounds of explosions ► Pools of molten steel All supported by photographic evidence and eyewitness testimonies
Eyewitness interviews not used ► Paramedic Daniel Rivera – “[Did] you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop?’…I thought it was that.” ► Witness Timothy Burke – “the building popped, lower than the fire…I was going oh, my God, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.” ► Firefighter Edward Cachia – “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives…” ► Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory -- “I thought…that I saw low-level flashes…[at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
Eyewitness interviews not used ► Firefighter Richard Banaciski – “It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all around like a belt, all these explosions.” ► Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick – “My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.” ► Battalion Chief Brian Dixon – “the lowest floor of the fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives all around it because…everything blew out on the one floor.” ► Firefighter Kenneth Rogers – “there was an explosion in the south tower…I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. [It] looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.”
Sept 2005 - The NIST WTC Report ► 42 sub-reports and 10,000 pages ► Only for Twin Towers ► Like others, focused only on political story ► With same people as before (i.e. FEMA, DOD contractors)
FEMA authors become NIST authors ► FEMA Chapter 1 authors Therese McAllister: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7 John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7 Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor ► FEMA Chapter 2 authors Ronald Hamburger: see above William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom tower Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7 ► FEMA chapter 5 authors (WTC 7) Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F Harold Nelson: see above
NFPA 921 used? Standard for fire investigation ► Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided (The War on Terrorism is big business!) NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on government contracts or on the official story itself ► Sec 12-4: Unusual residues …could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials NIST report does not mention evidence of intragranular melting of WTC samples or FEMA’s puzzling Sulfur residue – “No clear explanation for the source of the Sulfur has been identified.” The New York Times called this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”
NIST’s review of documents ► Reports of original design claims? No, many relevant claims not mentioned ► Fire resistance test data (e.g. UL test documents)? No, documents came up missing ► Skilling’s fire resistance analysis? No, documents missing
Original design claims ► “ The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. ” ► For the perimeter columns (83% of total columns), “ live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs. ” ► One “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction.” All quotes from Engineering News-Record, 1964
Were the WTC steel components tested for fire resistance? ► The NYC building code requires fire resistance testing of both columns (steel assemblies) and floors (floor assemblies) ► NIST said they found no documents, yet states the buildings were rated as Class 1B (3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors) ► Port Authority -- “there are no test records in our files” ► ASTM E119 is used for testing both steel components and floor assemblies
UL comments on testing the WTC steel ► September 2001 Loring Knoblauch, UL’s CEO, told staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC ► November 2003 I asked Knoblauch in writing about UL’s involvement, and he responded in December confirming details. ► “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.” ► “As we do not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.” ► “We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them.”
Underwriters Laboratories Lying To Us? ► August 2004 UL performed tests of WTC floor models Floors barely affected and didn’t collapse Loring Knoblauch resigned suddenly ► November 2004 My letter to NIST became public UL quickly backtracked, saying ► “No evidence” any firm tested the steel ► They played only a “limited” role in investigation ► No evidence? Does that mean their CEO was wrong or they were in no way involved?
NIST’s analysis of steel samples ► Most of the steel evidence destroyed Tomasetti decision (Thornton’s partner) 236 samples saved for testing (0.3%) ► NIST tests Paint test indicated low steel temps (480 F ) “despite pre-collapse exposure to fire” Microstructure test showed no steel reached critical, half-strength value (1100 F)
NIST Comments Before and After ► Before steel temperature analysis (12/02/03) “Regions of impact and fire damage emphasized in selection of steel pieces.” ► After steel temperature analysis (final report) “None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted.”
Other NIST tests ► UL floor model tests evaluated Pancake Theory ► Workstation burn tests Gas temperatures, not steel temperatures Used double the average amount of jet fuel Used “Over-ventilation” ► Tests to prove loss of fireproofing? Fifteen rounds from a shotgun
Pancake Theory “ I could see it in my mind ’ s eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in. ” -- Karl Koch (from Karl Koch ’ s book Men of Steel) Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." - NIST’s Shyam Sunder in Popular Mechanics Floor panels 20 feet wide
WTC floor model tests by UL (Aug 2004) ► Began with less fireproofing than was known to exist in WTC1, and then reduced fireproofing further ► Performed “…four standard fire resistance tests (ASTM E119) of the floor truss assemblies with twice the floor load that was on the WTC floors.” (NCSTAR 1-6) ► Minimal floor sagging ► No floor collapse ► “ The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th. ”
NIST comments before and after ► Before UL floor tests “[Tests will] determine the fire rating of typical WTC floor systems under both as-built and specified conditions” ► After UL floor tests “The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses” ► August 2006 “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse”
NIST’s computer simulations ► Input parameters could be tweaked ► “Realistic” parameters tossed in favor of “More severe” parameters ► Animations generated to “compare with observed events” (but we can’t see them)
NIST’s investigative practices were deceptive and unscientific ► Documents needed just happened to be missing ► Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored ► Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored ► Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations
NIST’s Final, Computer-Based Story 1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns” 2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%) 3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged 4. High temperatures softened columns and floors 5. Some floors began to sag 6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle 7. Instability spread around entire building “Global collapse ensued”
1. How many columns were severed? ► NIST now admits only a small percentage of columns were severed 14% in WTC1 15% in WTC2 ► But since one “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction”, we know the buildings could withstand > 25% column loss without a problem.
2. How much load was re-distributed? ► NIST says loads on some columns were decreased (as much as 20%) and other loads were increased (up to 25%). What about failure zone? ► Since the original design claims were that, “ live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs ”, these columns should have supported the extra load and much, much more ► So far, no reason to even suspect collapse
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged? “The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” -- NIST
3. NIST must have done extensive testing to prove fireproofing was widely dislodged! ► No, they shot 15 rounds from a shotgun at non- representative samples in a plywood box ► No evidence that Boeing 767 would transform into so many shotgun blasts (many thousands would be needed) ► Shotgun test actually proved fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged because the energy was simply not available
No energy left to dislodge fireproofing ► NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1 Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns & floors* Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had > 6000 sq meters of surface area *Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT *Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
4. How hot could the steel have become? ► NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires. This would have provided 590,000 MJ of energy. ► Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy. ► Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temperature in the impact zone can be calculated. ► The result is less than 600 degrees F Assuming fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, that no heat escaped by conduction, and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Review and Problems Review NIST Story and Problems ► ► Column breakage (14%) weakened building, then external columns saw up to 25% increases in total load ► ► Fireproofing “widely dislodged” ► ► High steel temps required for long time ► Can lose an additional 30 or more before challenging design claims; external columns designed to withstand 2000% increases in live load ► No evidence that Boeing 767 would transform into thousands of shotgun blasts; no energy available to dislodge fireproofing ► Tests and calculations show steel temps were way too low
How long did fires last in failure zones? ► In NCSTAR 1-6, section 9.4.3 and section 10.9.4, NIST says… “The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly, within 10 to 20 minutes, than the 50 to 60 minutes it took the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.”
5. Some floors began to sag? ► Only very slight sagging is visible in NIST photos from UL tests (and no collapse) ► After two hours in high temp furnace, the deck of 35 ft floor model sagged about 3 inches in the middle, and the major joist parts did not sag at all ► NIST’s computer turned this into dramatic 42 inch sagging, with joists bending downward severely
6. How did the sagging floors pull exterior columns inward causing them to buckle? ► Over 30 columns would have to be pulled in to challenge design claim. ► What new force did a few inches of deck sagging apply to those 30+ columns? ► NIST did not perform tests to prove inward buckling via sagging floors. This pivotal argument is supported only by a highly manipulated, and ultimately absurd, computer model. *Note: NIST’s “enhanced” photos showing bowing just before failure do not prove that this was caused by sagging floors – it could more easily be explained by demolition.
Manipulated and disconnected ► “An exterior wall section (9 columns wide and 9 floors high) was found to bow inward when floor connections applied an inward force.” (computer result for one case out of nine) ► NIST had to double the height of the inward pull zone, strip of ALL the fireproofing, exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), and then apply these temps for 90 minutes to produce even a hint of inward bowing from fire. ► But first - the floors had to be disconnected. Where does the inward pull come from !?!
7. Instability spread around entire building perimeter? ► Buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. How fast would instability have to spread first? How much of the ~10 sec fall time could be spared? ► Perimeter of building was 832 feet. If complete in 0.5 seconds, speed of “instability spread” would have been >1100 mph (Mach 1.5) ► “A steel structure, generally speaking, does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire. There are unmistakable warning signs, namely, large deformations.” Hart, Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Halsted Press
NIST’s collapse initiation sequence: What would objective scientists have found? 1. Relatively few columns were lost on impact 2. Remaining columns had considerable extra capacity 3. Fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged 4. Steel could not have softened at the temps found 5. Even at higher temps and longer periods tests showed minimal sagging of floors 6. Forces were not produced to pull columns inward 7. “Instability spread” would have taken much more time and would not result in uniform free-fall
NIST’s computer story is Bush Science ► The parameters NIST originally considered “realistic” were discarded because computer results “did not compare to observed events.” ► “More severe” parameters were substituted until animations gave the desired result ► Public has no access to NIST’s computer model or to their 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage
“Global collapse ensued?” ► What about resistance of floors below? If these floors each caused hesitation of only half a second, an extra 40 seconds would be needed. ► What about the observed squibs? (No more pancaking!) ► What about the molten metal observed pouring from the building and the pools of molten metal in the basement areas of both Towers and WTC 7? ► What about the molten metal observed pouring from the building and the pools of molten metal in the basement areas of both Towers and WTC 7? ► What about the intragranular melting and sulfur residue found on the steel?
The NIST WTC report is false because… ► They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed, and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step ► They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing ► They omitted or distorted many important facts Original design claims and John Skilling’s analysis Resistance from building structure below WTC 1 antenna moving first Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions Sulfur residue on the steel
NIST’s FAQ responses – Aug 2006 ► Why didn’t NIST consider demolition? No answer, but in retrospect they say demolition is not reasonable “NIST’s findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse” (unless being interviewed by Popular Mechanics) ► Where did the squibs come from? Compressed air, but not pancaking ► Did UL test the steel for fire resistance? Not for six hours ► Where does the molten metal come from? This is irrelevant, but it may have been Aluminum from the plane Or it may have been caused by the duration of the fires in the pile
Who else have we heard from? ► Popular Mechanics Hearst magazine (propaganda tool again?) promotes the pancake theory and magic fuel ► Implosionworld The photographer Brent Blanchard, with uninformative bluster, speaks for the demolition industry and gets State Dept approval ► The Progressive Corley and Sozen strike again ► Rolling Stone We must cling to the false story until the “conspiracy theorists” prove another, more outrageous one.
Who have we NOT heard from? ► Advances in Applied Mechanics ► International Journal of Plasticity ► Proceedings of the IEEE ► Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research ► Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data ► Fluid Phase Equilibria ► Materials science ► Acta Materialia ► Advanced Materials ► Advanced Functional Materials ► Annual Review of Materials Research ► Chemistry of Materials ► International Materials Review ► Journal of Materials Research ► Journal of Materials Science ► Metallurgical and Materials Transactions ► Nature Materials ► Progress in Materials Science ► Advances in Physics ► Journal of Physics ► Physical Review ► Reports on Progress in Physics ► Reviews in Modern Physics ► Journal of the American Chemical Society ► Angewandte Chemie International Edition ► Chemical Communications ► Chemical Reviews ► Accounts of Chemical Research ► Chemistry - A European Journal ► Chemistry Letters ► Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan ► Helvetica Chimica Acta ► Canadian Journal of Chemistry
What about WTC 7? ► Would have been tallest building in 33 states ► Collapsed in 6.6 seconds ► Larry Silverstein, leaseholder for all three buildings -- “I said…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” PBS, 2002 ► FEMA -- “the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers”
How did we get here? ► The collapse of the WTC buildings is only a part of a long list of unprecedented events on 9/11/01 ► The explanations we’ve been given have come from those working for the Bush Administration, or from those profiting from the War on Terror ► We know these people lie to us about everything, and that they distort and manipulate scientific findings ► We know NIST’s story about the WTC is false, and is only the latest in a string of false stories
How can we turn away from the road to global collapse? ► By admitting that this is not just about demons wanting to steal our freedoms ► By consciously examining ALL of the evidence behind the false story of 9/11/01 ► By considering ALL the hypotheses no matter where they lead ► By taking responsibility for the deception in our lives
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.