Sep 122021
 

By Ted Walter

Even the respected and dauntless filmmaker Spike Lee could not overcome the awesome wrath of the mainstream media that comes down upon any person of influence who dares challenge the official story of 9/11.

In a span of three days, from August 23rd to 26th, Lee went from staunchly defending his decision to include so-called “9/11 conspiracy theorists” in his eight-hour HBO docuseries, NYC Epicenters 9/11 → 2021½, to removing the entire 30 minutes he had devoted to questioning how the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell. The half-hour was part of the final two-hour episode set to air on the night of the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

Unbeknownst to most people — because only members of the media got to view the episode and declare it unfit for the public to see — the 30 minutes of excised material included far more than just interviews with so-called “fringe architects.” (Actually, there were upwards of 10 architects and engineers, ranging from a San Francisco high-rise architect to a fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.) There were also interviews with 9/11 family members who believe they have not been told the truth about the murder of their loved ones and with first responders and survivors who witnessed explosions. Along with all those interviews was a wealth of archival footage and radio dispatches from that morning, in which rescuer after rescuer can be heard reporting explosions. (Full disclosure: I was also interviewed for the film.)

Instead of painting a full and accurate picture of the now-excised section, the media seized upon the inclusion of “conspiracy group” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our founder Richard Gage — who, in the words of Slate editor Jeremy Stahl, “is responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks.”

Read more here

Sep 112021
 

https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/11/watch-covid19-11-niels-harrit/

Episode Four of Narratives Intertwined features Niels Harrit, retired professor of chemistry from the University of Copenhagen.

Professor Harrit is a well-known voice in the alternate media and has published important academic papers on the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He has also authored articles outlining serious potential flaws in the RT-PCR tests used to diagnose Sars-Cov-2 infection.

In his interview, Prof Harrit discusses how he woke up to the truth of 9/11, the problems with Covid19 narrative, how both are battles in the same psychological war…and what we can do, together, to resist it.

You can read some of Prof. Harrit’s work below.

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” (With Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen).

“Making something out of nothing”: PCR tests, CT values and false positives.

Prof. Niels Harrit’s testimony to the Toronto Hearings on 9/11.

Sep 102021
 

Watch the free online preview at 8pm Eastern on September 10, 2021, at https://AE911Truth.org
(12.00 pm in New Zealand)

Then stay tuned for the worldwide release on September 17, 2021, on YouTube and at the Village East in NYC: https://www.angelikafilmcenter.com/vi….

ABOUT THE FILM

The Unspeakable follows four families in their ongoing struggle to find the truth about the death of their loved ones on September 11, 2001.

Interwoven with their stories are the elucidating words of psychologist Robert Griffin, who guides the audience through an exploration of trauma and the healing power of bringing suppressed truths to light.

Also in the film, renowned forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht reviews the autopsy report and remains of two 9/11 victims whose families believe their bodies hold the truth to what happened that day.

Sep 052021
 

Philip Kraske’s article of September 4, 2021 in The Unz Review…

It seems that there are to be no dissenting voices on the twentieth anniversary of 9-11. Even film director Spike Lee was forced by media outcry to edit out of his documentary mini-series the half-hour dedicated to skeptics of the official version of the event. Thus the citizenry has been saved from “a bog of heinously dangerous ideas.”

Read on:
https://www.unz.com/article/why-do-journalists-hate-9-11-truthers/

 Posted by at 9:45 pm
Sep 012021
 
Global Research, September 01, 2021

As I write, 9/11 truth attorneys have appealed a dismissal by a Manhattan judge who, days ago, denied standing to plaintiffs who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The surviving family members seek to present evidence before a Grand Jury that explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 attorneys and the structural engineers who stand behind them are prepared to prove in court that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency tasked to investigate the collapse of Building Seven (WTC-7), covered up the controlled demolition of the building. Assuming a discovery process happens in a courtroom, anything is possible. The truth may emerge. The question is: will the 9/11 attorneys be granted due process under the US Constitution to introduce the evidence? 

Some of this evidence came to light recently during an independent assessment of NIST’s final report on WTC-7 by a team of engineers at the University of Alaska. 

While visiting Fairbanks in August 2018, I was fortunate to meet the team’s lead engineer, professor Leroy Hulsey. At that time, the team was nearing completion of its work. As we chatted over coffee, Dr Hulsey explained that his engineers ruled out fire as the cause of the WTC-7 collapse early in their investigation. NIST had argued in its report that building fires on the lower floors weakened a critical column (#79) in the northeastern portion of the building, causing it to fail. This allegedly caused two nearby columns (#80 and #81) to fail, setting in motion a “progressive collapse.”

Hulsey’s team found, however, that NIST misrepresented key structural details of WTC-7, invalidating its fire-induced collapse model.

I asked Dr Hulsey if he had access to the original blueprints. He replied that his team had something better, namely, the actual construction records and diagrams. These tell the full story because contractors do not always follow blueprints exactly during construction. Modifications are common.

When Hulsey’s team incorporated the actual structural details of WTC-7 in a computer model and ran simulations of NIST’s collapse scenario, the building did not collapse. The tower withstood the loss of three major columns due to the steel-frame’s redundant strength. The loads were simply transferred to other columns.

His engineers then ran more simulations, each time subtracting another column until they induced a collapse. However, instead of collapsing in the manner that was observed on 9/11, the building tipped over to the southeast. Numerous videos taken from different angles show that the 47-story steel frame tower dropped straight down into its footprint.

After repeated trials, Hulsey’s team concluded that NIST’s progressive collapse scenario was not feasible. At this point, they began exploring other collapse scenarios in an attempt to duplicate the actual event captured on film. There was only one match: the simultaneous failure of every core column, followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of every perimeter column. The pattern should be recognizable because this is the standard sequence employed in controlled demolitions.

Free Fall

The excellent work done by Hulsey’s team reinforces the case for explosives, which was already compelling by 2008. In August of that year, the public was allowed to comment on NIST’s WTC-7 draft report at an open hearing. A physics teacher named David Chandler took advantage of the occasion and asked probing questions that proved so embarrassing that NIST was compelled to modify the language in its final report, released shortly thereafter. In it NIST concedes that WTC-7 dropped in a free fall acceleration. It was a damning admission because the agency had previously acknowledged that free fall is the signature of a controlled demolition.

As we know, Building Seven housed the CIA, the Department of Defense, major securities traders, and the offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where the records of many ongoing SEC investigations into corporate crime were stored, including Enron. All of these records were destroyed on 9/11. The SEC subsequently tabled all of these criminal investigations, which turned out to be very convenient (and profitable) for corporate America.

NIST claims it never found evidence of explosives at the World Trade Center (WTC). The reason, of course, is because the agency never looked, even though this is a standard protocol after large building fires, not to mention the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Independent scientists did look. In 2007, a physicist from Brigham Young University, Dr Steven Jones, reported the discovery of tiny flakes of unexploded thermate in WTC dust samples collected immediately after 9/11.

Thermate differs from its cousin thermite in that it contains elemental sulfur, which has the effect of greatly lowering the melting point of iron. Thermite is composed of iron-oxide and aluminum and is occasionally used in demolition work. Sulfur is sometimes added to speed up the reaction. Jones also found an abundance of tiny iron-rich microspheres in the dust, hard evidence that steel had melted. Other researchers also reported finding microspheres.

The announced discovery of thermate in the WTC dust should have been headline news nation-wide. Yet, there was no mention of it in the New York Times or Washington Post. And the rest of the US media followed their silent “lead.”

Jones continued to study the WTC dust and later co-authored a more detailed paper with Niels Harrit, a Danish chemist, and other scientists. Their peer-reviewed article appeared in an online science journal in 2009. To this day, it has never been rebutted.

The authors identified the constituents of the tiny flakes and found them to be thermitic in nature. The grains of iron-oxide were extremely small, roughly 100 nanometers across, indicating the use of the more explosive form of thermite known as nano-thermite or super-thermite. When the authors ignited the flakes, they found they were more energetic than conventional explosives. These reactions also produced iron-rich microspheres like those found in the WTC dust. 

Nano-thermite was developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and was available by April 2000, seventeen months before 9/11.

But nano-thermite and thermate were probably not the only explosives used to bring down the towers. The box columns that supported World Trade Center One and Two were seven inches thick at the base (as reported by NIST). And many of these massive core columns had been severed at or near ground level. In the years after 9/11, a debate raged within the 9/11 truth community about what kind of additional explosives had been used. Many believed thermate/thermite could not reliably have done the job on the gigantic columns.

The powerful blasts that destroyed the core columns just before each tower fell shook Manhattan. The explosions caused a cloud of dust to rise from street level; this was captured on film. And the stupendous noise of the explosions was heard and felt by many thousands of New Yorkers (and recorded) at least as far away as Hoboken, on the west shore of the Hudson River. Yet, all of the eyewitness accounts were dismissed as the wild ravings of conspiracy kooks.

These tremendous explosions no doubt also help to explain the large quantities of molten steel found beneath the WTC ruin. The heat must have been incredible, because, in the days after the attacks, New York City fire fighters pumped millions of gallons of water onto the smoking piles, to no effect. Dogs brought in by first responders to help locate survivors in the wreckage suffered serious burns, and some of the dogs died. Workers on site said their rubber boots melted. Clean up crews were still reporting molten steel as late as February 2002.

Building fires and burning jet fuel cannot explain the iron microspheres and molten steel. Not even close.

An air quality study produced additional evidence. After the attacks, a University of California (Davis) physicist, Dr Thomas Cahill, brought a team to New York and set up air monitoring stations across lower Manhattan. Cahill’s team documented the most toxic air he had ever seen over the course of his long career. In his write up Cahill mentions an anomaly he could not explain: an abundance of nano-sized particles spewing from the WTC ruin. Ordinary building fires do not produce large quantities of nano particulates, which are evidence of extreme temperatures.

After analyzing the data, Cahill issued a dire health warning. Nano particles of glass, chemicals and heavy metals easily infiltrate the human body. They damage the heart and other organs, and even cross the blood brain barrier. Cahill predicted a continuing health crisis for local residents and for clean-up workers, many of whom did not wear protective masks because they were told the air was safe to breathe. In subsequent years, thousands of first responders, firemen, and construction workers suffered life threatening leukemias, other cancers, as well as ischemic heart and lung disease. Many more Americans died as a result of the toxic fumes than perished in the attacks.

Although the evidence I have summarized is legally conclusive, I am in contact with a physicist who has gone even further. He has attempted to arrange for materials scientists to conduct radio-isotopic studies of WTC steel samples. Unfortunately, so far, none of the labs in Europe or Japan have agreed to run the definitive tests, probably because they were warned off by US officials.

Stay tuned. 9/11 attorneys intend to pursue this historic case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In the coming days, Americans will learn if the US judicial system is capable of delivering justice to the families of the victims. Only the truth about the 9/11 attacks can heal our nation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark H. Gaffney is the author of two books about the September 11, 2001 attacks: The 9/11 Mystery Plane (2008) and Black 9/11 (2nd edition, 2016). Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net

Apr 032021
 

The conspiracy theory that still won’t rest in peace: Think it’s only cranks who believe the Twin Towers attack was a U.S. government plot? Twenty years on, the family of one British victim is demanding a fresh inquest in the hope of proving just that.
By SUE REID FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 08:36 AEST, 2 April 2021 | UPDATED: 20:34 AEST, 2 April 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9428743/The-conspiracy-theory-wont-rest-peace.html?requestPublishPermission=true&login#newcomment

 Posted by at 11:00 pm
Mar 252021
 

Craig McKee March 24, 2021

A recently discovered eyewitness account of an “incredibly loud explosion” during the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001, has put the National Institute of Standards and Technology in a very uncomfortable position.

NIST claimed in its 2008 report on Building 7 that there were “no witness reports” of an explosion when the 47-story skyscraper fell symmetrically into its own footprint. The account of correspondent Gigi Stone Woods, who was reporting that day for local cable news channel NY1, categorically contradicts NIST’s claim.


Anyone familiar with the unscientific way that NIST conducted its investigation would expect the agency to simply ignore Woods’ account. But that won’t be so easy in this case because of the pending “request for correction” submitted last April by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The organization is now leveraging the request for correction to compel NIST to interview Woods, who confirmed her account to AE911Truth in January 2021.

AE911Truth did not become aware of Woods’ account until September 28, 2020, the same day that it filed its appeal of NIST’s initial denial of the request for correction. After the nonbinding 60-day deadline for NIST to respond to the appeal came and went, AE911Truth submitted Woods’ account — along with three other corroborating eyewitness accounts — as a supplement to both the request for correction and the appeal.

At the time that AE911Truth submitted the supplement in early December, however, the organization was not sure of the identity of the journalist who reported an “incredibly loud explosion.” In the letter to NIST dated December 7, 2020, AE911Truth stated that it “appeared” to be NY1 correspondent Annika Pergament.

That view changed a few weeks later when Ted Walter, AE911Truth’s director of strategy and development, received a Facebook message from cameraman Basche Warner. Walter had contacted Warner two months earlier because Warner had been identified by the reporter in the clip as the cameraman responsible for shooting the footage.

Warner wrote in his message to Walter: “Yes, I shot that video. It was WTC 7.” In a follow-up message to Walter, Warner advised that the reporter was actually Gigi Stone Woods and not Annika Pergament.

Walter then contacted Woods to ask her to confirm her statement of 19 years earlier, and that is just what she did in an email response on January 4, 2021. In her reply, she stated, “All I remember is that we were reporting near building 7 [sic] heard a loud explosion and people yelling to run and we all did.”

Read more here

Dec 312020
 

AE911Truth’s new documentary about Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s groundbreaking new study on WTC7
By Kevin Ryan
Global Research, December 30, 2020
OffGuardian 29 December 2020

The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.

The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.
Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.

The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.

However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports. It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area. The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.

The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.

In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.

Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me:

Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.

I agree.

If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.

Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, here.