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.

Nov 272020
 

by Craig McKee
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/716-youtube-google-suppress-ae911truth-boost-authoritative-sources-like-nist

The suppression of alternative voices on the internet, including those who challenge the official story of 9/11, is relentless. And it’s getting worse.

The censorship of non-mainstream viewpoints includes content created by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This practice, by online giants like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, has been going on for a long time but has been reaching a fever pitch over the past two or three years.

It is particularly YouTube and its parent company, Google, whose policies have made it more difficult to find AE911Truth and its content online.

This is all being done in the name of reducing “harm” allegedly created by “extremism” and “misinformation.” Mainstream accounts of events like 9/11 are more and more being shielded from scrutiny as material challenging them is either banned or made harder to find.

Meanwhile, mainstream media are being held up as authorities on what is true and what isn’t. This effectively means that alternative journalists whose reports differ from those of the corporate media on the same subject are assumed to be spreading misinformation.

Internet censorship is being carried out in a number of ways. A few years ago, YouTube began “demonetizing” videos that it considered inappropriate or problematic in some way. This did not affect AE911Truth directly, since the organization has never used the platform to generate advertising revenue.

But more recent moves are having an effect.

AE911Truth videos won’t come up nearly as readily as they once did when someone searches for them on YouTube, nor are they as easy to find on Google. In fact, even when you type in the precise title of an AE911Truth video, you’re far more likely to find numerous mainstream outlets appearing ahead of what you are actually searching for. Sometimes you’ll see AE911Truth videos that have been re-posted on other YouTube channels.

Read more here

Sep 052020
 

https://www.ae911truth.org/justicerising

Justice Rising | 9/11 in 2020
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is thrilled to present “Justice Rising,” an online conference on the continuing struggle for 9/11 justice and the destructive trajectory of the post-9/11 world.

The conference will run from Friday, September 11, to Sunday, September 13, marking the 19th anniversary of the day that changed our world so profoundly. The conference will go for three hours each day and will be open to all free of charge.

Sep 052020
 

https://noliesradio.org/truth

This year, as the Grand Lake Theater is closed due to Covid-19, we are doing an interactive zoom webinar online only…you will be able to participate in the Q&A

This Interactive WEBINAR Will Be LIVE STREAMED on
Thursday, September 10, 2020 at: Noon Pacific * 3pm Eastern * 19:00 GMT
(8 hours duration) (You will be able to participate in the Q&A)
The entire event will be archived for 7 days afterwards so you can arrive late or watch it later or again.

This year’s Film Festival is dedicated to the memory of Chuck Millar, Giuletto Chiesa, and Sandra Brown, courageous, loving, truth seekers, who will be deeply missed.

2020 is an unusual year; weddings have been cancelled, schools closed, almost all large public gatherings banned, the global economy dismantled; the middle class and Main Street’s small and medium sized businesses are struggling to survive. In California, the film industry, the theaters have been hit hard. The Grand Lake Theater, which has generously hosted countless events and 15 prior 9/11 Truth Film Festivals is currently closed.

In March, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance could no longer meet legally and was forced to hold meetings in cyberspace. No Lies Radio hosted Zoom meetings and discussions and organizing continued, despite the obstacles and challenges that everyone faced The group voted to go “virtual” this year, with the assistance of No Lies Radio who has been webstreaming the live Film Festival for many years.

We will miss the Grand Lake Theater, the chance to hug, greet and talk with old friends and make new ones, the popcorn, the cookies, being together, in person. However, a virtual Film Festival is the best we can do, and does actually allow some interactivity, questions and answers, and bringing in distant speakers, without dealing with airports and hotels. Please join us! Voice your questions for our guest speakers and panelists. Guns and Butter’s Bonnie Faulkner will kick off the Film Festival, as she has for 16 years! We will post the program here when we finalize it.

As this dramatic year continues to unfold, our program is evolving; we have penciled in films that are still in production, as well as the best 9/11 Truth films that we could find, since last year’s Film Festival. In addition to 9/11, our speakers will address Covid-19 and the problems facing the upcoming national election.

The impact of 9/11 continues to shape US domestic and foreign policy, robbing us of our liberties, and costing millions of lives, as the subsequent wars continue to wreak havoc abroad. We have been committed to “ seek and disseminate truths about the terrible crimes committed on September 11, 2001, exposing gaps and deceptions in the official story. Our goal is to inspire more eyewitness revelations, truthful media coverage, and a movement that will bring the responsible criminals to justice and eliminate governmental and corporate policies that enable criminal elements to commit such acts.”

This year’s Featured Films include-

‘Calling Out Bravo 7; The 2020 Edition’

Produced by Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, this excellent, comprehensive documentary, includes details on the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 that are not well known. Very informative and important, a must see, especially for those who have never realized the deep flaws within the official narrative.

The Genesis of The 9/11 “War on Terror”: How Much Does Mainstream Academia Really Know?’

Compiled from an excellent presentation by Dr. Piers Robinson on 9/11/2019 at the Public Master Class on the events of September 11, 2001 in Zurich, Switzerland. Dr Piers Robinson is Co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 Global ‘War on Terror’. He is currently a Speciality Chief Editor for Political Communication and Society, Frontiers in Communication and sits on the editorial boards of several academic journals.

‘9/11 Whistleblowers ‘

Produced by James Corbett, The Corbett Report. A detailed look at the whistleblowers, that have spoken out, whose voices and stories have challenged the official narrative. They include- Kevin Ryan, Cate Jenkins, Barry Jennings, Michael Springmann and William Rodriguez.

And more to be announced!

Featured Speakers and Panelists-

Kevin Ryan on the “ Parallels Between 9/11 and Covid-19.”
See his recent article Is the Coronavirus Scare a Psychological Operation? Kevin Ryan- Heroic whistleblower, Kevin Ryan, was fired for going public on 9/11 by Underwriters Laboratories. He has continued to speak out, and investigate the events of 9/11. He has authored numerous articles, the book-‘ Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects’ and has edited The Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Jonathan Simon will address “Could the November Election be Stolen?”
Jonathan Simon is the Author of ‘CODE RED: Computerized Elections and the War on American Democracy– Election 2020 Edition’, Executive Director of Election Defense Alliance, he has published numerous papers on various aspects of election integrity since 2004. Dr. Simon is a graduate of Harvard College and New York University School of Law.

New York Fire Commissioner Christopher Goia of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department, helped pass a powerful resolution in support of the Grand Jury Investigation of 9/11 in July 2019. He served in the Marine Corps, and as an Emergency Medical Technician for 25 years, he also worked in construction, and volunteered for the Fire Department for three decades.

Erik Lawyer- Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. Currently Erik lives and works in Colorado building community and resilience. His organization, One Becoming One works on personal transformation, as well as overcoming fear through love.

Live Video Streaming and Archiving for this important news event is
provided by No Lies Radio News
“The views expressed in this event are the sole responsibility of the speaker(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of noliesradio.org. Noliesradio.org will not be responsible or liable for any inac