Dec 192015
 

The following statement was released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on December 18, 2015.

Please share it on Facebook and post it in the comments section of the YouTube video and of the online news outlets listed below. Thank you for helping AE911Truth quell the misinformation!

Viral 9/11 Truth-Debunking Blacksmith Gets It All Wrong

Much hay has been made in recent days about a YouTube video posted by a blacksmith named Trenton Tye, who tries to debunk the theory that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.

Within the first two days of being posted, Tye’s video received five million views and was covered by the Washington Post, the Daily Mirror, and the Huffington Post — the latter with the celebratory headline, “Metal Worker Shuts Down 9/11 Truthers… With His Pinkie.”

In fact, Tye’s attempt to disprove controlled demolition by heating a half-inch piece of steel to 1,800°F and bending it like a “noodle” is way off. He seems to think the controlled demolition argument goes like this, “Fire can’t melt steel, so the buildings couldn’t have collapsed from fire.” He couldn’t be more mistaken.

The only reason that melting steel is discussed at all is because government officials, engineers, first responders, and others observed large amounts of molten metal (requiring temperatures of more than 2,800°F) in the debris of all three buildings.

Tye’s sixth-grade-level demonstration that structural steel loses strength at 1,800°F does nothing to address the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero. If anything, Tye proves that the fires in the World Trade Center could not have generated the molten metal that witnesses saw. What did? The only plausible explanation is thermite, an incendiary that can be used to cut through structural steel.

Putting aside the molten metal, Tye’s demonstration is wholly irrelevant for the simple reason that the fires in the World Trade Center could not have heated the structure anywhere near as high as the 1,800°F to which Tye heated his piece of steel using a furnace.

Jet fuel fires reach temperatures of around 1,500°F only under optimal conditions. In open air conditions like the WTC buildings, they burn at around 600°F. Even according to the government agency that investigated the disaster, there is no evidence that any of the steel was heated to the point where it would lose its strength.

There have been literally hundreds of hotter, larger, longer-lasting fires in steel-frame high-rises over the last century, and never has one caused the total collapse of a building. Tye’s simplistic logic implies that many of these infernos should have led to a total collapse. Of course, none has — and that also goes for the three steel-frame high-rises that were destroyed on 9/11.

That this YouTube video has become an overnight sensation testifies to the alarming lack of journalistic rigor and scientific acumen with which the media has approached the debate surrounding the World Trade Center destruction on 9/11 — and to the rampant misinformation that has followed.

We encourage anyone who thinks there might be some validity to Tye’s confused science experiment to visit AE911Truth.org and to read our most recent publication, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, for real expert analysis of the evidence.

Dec 102015
 


Published on Dec 9, 2015
Dr. Niels Harrit expresses his support for Dr. Leroy Hulsey and the WTC 7 Evaluation project.

http://WTC7Evaluation.org

World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation is an engineering study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. The study is being conducted by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. Professionals from the fields of structural engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, building design and construction, physics, math, and science, as well as everyday citizens, are invited to get involved. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted onhttp://WTC7Evaluation.org. The study is being crowd-funded by the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

For more information visit http://WTC7Evaluation.org

Dec 072015
 

Evidence still raises questions over World Trade Center collapses
DECEMBER 04, 2015

ALEX BEAM’S portrayal of “architect truthers” is yet another disappointing example of a journalist resorting to ad hominem attacks and avoiding the facts when discussing the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on Sept. 11, 2001 (“The ‘truthers’ and 9/11,” Opinion, Nov. 16).

Sadly, not one sentence of Beam’s column examines the evidence for or against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. Instead, he devotes 600 words to revealing his own ill-founded bias.

He cherry-picks the appearance of three nonexperts from the 15-minute video “Architects & Engineers — Solving the Mystery of Building 7,” but doesn’t highlight any of the film’s “various experts.” Noting that some Americans think that what happened that day hasn’t “been fully explained,” he declares, “I don’t agree,” but gives no evidence-based reason for disagreeing. His position rests on his revulsion at the idea that someone — “our own government,” he supposes — consciously demolished the World Trade Center.

As building professionals, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth try not to let personal feelings interfere with investigating the three worst structural failures in modern history. Nearly 2,400 architects and engineers, not including the 109 who signed our petition at the recent annual trade show ABX, have joined us because we stick to science.

The physical evidence shows that scattered office fires could not have caused the 47-story WTC 7 to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. (Imagine Boston’s 52-story Prudential Tower completely collapsing in seven seconds from small fires — it’s hard to, isn’t it?) The evidence also shows that the twin towers were not leveled by the airplane impacts and ensuing fires.

The implications are indeed far-reaching, and that is why we urge people to study all the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

Richard Gage

Nov 292015
 


Published on Nov 27, 2015

Incontrovertible – New 9/11 documentary by Tony Rooke
A film for Coppers & Fire Fighters by Coppers & Fire Fighters.
Buy the standard definition DVD or Blu-ray version of the film from http://www.incontrovertible911evidenc…

REVIEWS:
—————

“Simply put, this is not just the best film I’ve seen on 911, it’s the best film I have seen all year.” – Sergeant John Meaders, 32 year ex Californian police officer

“One of the best 911 movies ever made!” – Kevin Barrett, Truth Jihad Radio

“All family members of a 9/11 victim should watch this film.” – Matt Campbell, victim family member

“Incontrovertible is technically brilliant” – Ian Henshall, Author ‘9/11 Revealed’ & ‘9/11 The New Evidence’

“Moving, powerful & informative” – Niels Harrit, Veteran Truth Campaigner

“Artfully crafted – manages to convince cumulatively that there are still questions to answer” – Joe Gill – Journalist – Middle East Eye

—————

Please support the film maker, Tony Rooke, by purchasing a DVD or Blu-ray DVD of the film from his website http://www.incontrovertible911evidence.co.uk
Please distribute copies of the film to serving police officers, fire fighters and military personnel.

If you live in the UK, stop funding the purposes of terrorism.

Section 15 Article 3 of the Terrorism Act (2000) states:

(3) A person commits an offence if he— (a) provides money or other property, and (b) knows or has REASONABLE CAUSE to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2…

This film gives us more than REASONABLE CAUSE to suspect that in the UK we are ALL guilty of funding the purposes of terrorism through our taxes and funding of the BBC.

Nov 262015
 

World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation is an engineering study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. The study is being conducted by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. Professionals from the fields of structural engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, building design and construction, physics, math, and science, as well as everyday citizens, are invited to get involved. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted on http://WTC7Evaluation.org. The study is being crowd-funded by the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Jul 212015
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ERbG8h-5Is&feature=youtu.be

Published on Jul 19, 2015

This video encapsulates the ridiculous assertions of the “official” story for those who believe the Government’s version about what happened on 9/11. It was also created to honor those who lost loved ones as a direct or indirect result of 9/11 in the hopes that the real criminals will be brought to justice.

Special thanks to James Corbett for granting permission to use his script for the making of this video.

 Posted by at 7:22 pm
May 172015
 

The American Institute of Architects confirmed their place in modern Amercian [sic] SCAD in Atlanta this week, by voting not to confront the massed evidence of Controlled Demolitions in New York on 911.

By allowing the Thermal Expansion hypothesis of Shyam Sunder to stand part [“The Results Are In || May 16, 2015 Overwhelming Majority of AIA Delegates Make the Political Decision and Vote Down Resolution 15-6:”], the Institute formally wrote into the literature its blessing of the 911 creatioNIST agnotology, whereby engineering algorithms were constructed -without peer review – to explain the 82 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rises’ sudden, complete and symmetric FREE FALL, directly into its own plan area, due to the NIST described ‘New Phenomenon’ “Sequential building collapse (due to Normal Office Furnishing Fires” already OUT at time of critical initiation) on ONE floor, around ONE column seat, in 6.5 seconds.

free fall.

‘“We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.” – Daniel Barnum, FAIA

Those were the closing remarks from the lead sponsor of AIA Resolution 15-6, Daniel Barnum, FAIA. Seconds later, the AIA delegates cast their votes. The unfortunate outcome was that an overwhelming majority made the political decision. Resolution 15-6, which called upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation, was voted down 3,892 to 160, garnering 4% of the delegates’ votes.

The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

Resolution 15-6 met the same fate as all but one of the substantive resolutions considered. Even in terms of percentages, the outcome was not that different, with the other four losing resolutions garnering between 6% and 26% of the votes and one being tabled. This does not mitigate our disappointment—nor does it excuse the delegates for their failure to accept their moral and ethical responsibility as architects—but it does illuminate something that we learned: it is difficult to pass even most slightly controversial resolution at the AIA National Convention.

However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.

We would like to thank everyone who supported and contributed to our AIA resolution campaign. We were able to spark an unprecedented level of dialogue at the convention and gain a much deeper understanding of how we can successfully awaken the architecture community. Thank you.”‘ [A&E Bulletin]

 

 Posted by at 11:52 pm
Mar 222015
 

How Did They Know? Examining 9/11 Foreknowledge of WTC Building 7’s Destruction

By Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Global Research, March 22, 2015

by Dennis McMahon, J.D., L.L.M. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

WTC Building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building or WTC 7, was a 47–story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, Building 7 would have been the tallest high-–rise in thirty–three of our United States. Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker,” along with several major financial institutions.

Building 7, which was 100 yards from the Twin Towers, was not hit by an airplane on September 11, 2001, and suffered only minimal damage from debris falling from the North Tower. Several fires began burning on a few floors, and the entire building completely collapsed – almost into its own footprint – at 5:20 p.m. Numerous eyewitnesses, including members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) and other first responders, and multiple news sources, made statements that indicate that there was foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to come down, despite the fact that no skyscraper in history had ever completely collapsed due to fire. (Much of this evidence of foreknowledge is detailed on the website of the Remember Building 7 campaign and other related sites.)

Where foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event is demonstrated, the possibility must be considered that the foreknowledge derived directly or indirectly from those who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself. Thus, if foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 can be shown, this would be a strong indication that Building 7 was subjected to controlled demolition, and that advance warning of Building 7’s demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring the building down. Thus, foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 is not only consistent with, but supportive of, the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Read article here