Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

When is the News Not the News? – #PropagandaWatch

Corbett • 09/04/2019

So when is the news not the news? When it’s simply ignored by the mockingbird media, of course. Join James for today’s exploration of yet another tool in the propagandists’ toolbox in this week’s edition of #PropagandaWatch.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / Minds.com

SHOW NOTES
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Draft Report

The Myth of Journalistic Objectivity

“The News” is a Social Construct. It is Used to Program You.

“WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire” – Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017

Building 7 Study to Be Released September 3: I Need Your Help to Spread It Far and Wide

September 4, 2019 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The Official Story of the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Lies in Ruins

By Paul Craig Roberts | September 4, 2019

A research team at the University of Alaska’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, led by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Zhili Quan, and Professor Feng Xiao, Department of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, released yesterday for public comment their findings from a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. This is the first scientific investigation of the collapse of the building. Here is the conclusion:

“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.”

Notice three things: (1) it has taken 18 years to get a real investigation of the destruction of a building blamed on Muslim terrorists, (2) the only way “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” can occur is through controlled demolition, and (3) this remarkable finding is not reported in the presstitute media.

In other words, the study is assigned to the Memory Hole.  This is the way The Matrix operates. This is why you need this website. The only purpose of print and TV news is to program you so that you insouciantly go along with the agendas of those who rule you.  Those who sit in front of TV news, listen to NPR, or read newspapers are programmed to be mindless automatons.

Note this resolution of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District

Whereas, the attacks of September 11, 2001, are inextricably and forever tied to the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department;

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, while operating at the World Trade Center in New York City, firefighter Thomas J. Hetzel, badge #290 of Hook and Ladder Company #1, Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department of New York, was killed in performance of his duties, along with 2,976 other emergency responders and civilians;

Whereas, members of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Department were called upon to assist in the subsequent rescue and recovery operations and cleanup of the World Trade Center site, afflicting many of them with life-threatening illnesses as a result of breathing the deadly toxins present at the site;

Whereas, the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District recognizes the significant and compelling nature of the petition before the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York reporting un-prosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and calling upon the United States Attorney to present that petition to a Special Grand Jury pursuant to the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. SS 3332(A);

Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries—not just airplanes and the ensuing fires—caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;

Whereas, the victims of 9/11, their families, the people of New York City, and our nation deserve that every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, be investigated to the fullest and that every person who was responsible face justice;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District fully supports a comprehensive federal grand jury investigation and prosecution of every crime related to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as any and all efforts by other government entities to investigate and uncover the full truth surrounding the events of that horrible day.

September 4, 2019 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 5 Comments

On the physics of high-rise building collapses

REUTERS/Brad Rickerby REUTERS FILES BR/SV

By Steve Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter – Europhysics News

In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11):

  1. the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and
  2. the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane.

NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the

WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.

Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.

Preventing high-rise failures

Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons:

  1. Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);
  2. Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
  3. Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
  4. Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

.FIG.1:WTC5 is an example of how steel-framed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001, and did not suffer a total collapse (Source: FEmA)

FIG.1:WTC5 is an example of how steel- framed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001 (a), and did not suffer a total collapse (b) (Source: FEmA)

Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1 a and b) [1].

In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist loads generated during other extreme events — in particular, high winds and earthquakes. Designing for high-wind and seismic events mainly requires the ability of the structure to resist lateral loads, which generate both tensile and compressive stresses in the columns due to bending, the latter stresses then being combined with gravity-induced compressive stresses due to vertical loads.

FIG.2: WTC7fell symmetrically and at free-fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 seconds of its collapse (Source: NIST).

FIG.2: WTC7fell symmetrically and at free-fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 seconds of its collapse (Source: NIST).

It was not until steel became widely manufactured that the ability to resist large lateral loads was achieved and the construction of high-rises became possible. Steel is both very strong and ductile, which allows it to withstand the tensile stresses generated by lateral loads, unlike brittle materials, such as concrete, that are weak in tension. Although concrete is used in some high-rises today, steel reinforcement is needed in virtually all cases.

To allow for the resistance of lateral loads, high-rises are often designed such that the percentage of their columns’ load capacity used for gravity loads is relatively low. The exterior columns of the Twin Towers, for example, used only about 20% of their capacity to withstand gravity loads, leaving a large margin for the additional lateral loads that occur during high-wind and seismic events [2].

Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact, had been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers.

“However,” he added, “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage […] I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.

Techniques of controlled demolition

Controlled demolition is not a new practice. For years it was predominantly done with cranes swinging heavy iron balls to simply break buildings into small pieces. Occasionally, there were structures that could not be brought down this way. In 1935, the two 191-m-tall Sky Ride towers of the 1933 World’s Fair in Chicago were demolished with 680 kg of thermite and 58 kg of dynamite. Thermite is an incendiary containing a metal powder fuel (most commonly aluminum) and a metal oxide (most com- monly iron(III) oxide or “rust”).

Eventually, when there were enough large steel-framed buildings that needed to be brought down more efficiently and inexpensively, the use of shaped cutter charges became the norm. Because shaped charges have the ability to focus explosive energy, they can be placed so as to diagonally cut through steel columns quickly and reliably.

IG. 3: The final frame of NIST’s WTC 7 computer model shows large deformations to the exterior not observed in the videos (Source: NIST)

FIG. 3: The final frame of NIST’s WTC 7 computer model shows large deformations to the exterior not observed in the videos (Source: NIST)

In general, the technique used to demolish large buildings involves cutting the columns in a large enough area of the building to cause the intact portion above that area to fall and crush itself as well as crush whatever remains below it.

This technique can be done in an even more sophisticated way, by timing the charges to go off in a sequence so that the columns closest to the center are destroyed first. The failure of the interior columns creates an inward pull on the exterior and causes the majority of the building to be pulled inward and downward while materials are being crushed, thus keeping the crushed materials in a somewhat confined area — often within the building’s “footprint.” This method is often referred to as “implosion.”

The case of WTC 7

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion:

  • The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3].
  • Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second.
  • It fell symmetrically straight down.
  • Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.
  • Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

FIG.4: The above graph[10]comparesDavid Chandler’s measurement[9] of the velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 with Bažant’s erroneous calculation [11] and with Szamboti and Johns’ calculation using corrected input values for mass, acceleration through the first story, conservation of momentum, and plastic moment (the maximum bending moment a structural section can withstand). The calculations show that—in the absence of explosives—the upper section of WTC 1 would have arrested after falling for two stories (Source: Ref. [10]).

FIG.4: The above graph[10]compares David Chandler’s measurement[9] of the velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 with Bažant’s erroneous calculation [11] and with Szamboti and Johns’ calculation using corrected input values for mass, acceleration through the first story, conservation of momentum, and plastic moment (the maximum bending moment a structural section can withstand). The calculations show that—in the absence of explosives—the upper section of WTC 1 would have arrested after falling for two stories (Source: Ref. [10]).

Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,

Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.

All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying,

[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.

But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed,

there was structural resistance that was provided.

Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.

Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections — also due to thermal expansion — left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle.

FIG. 5: High-velocity bursts of debris, or “squibs,” were ejected from point-like sources in WTC 1 and WTC 2, as many as 20 to 30 stories below the collapse front (Source: Noah K. murray).

FIG. 5: High-velocity bursts of debris, or “squibs,” were ejected from point-like sources in WTC 1 and WTC 2, as many as 20 to 30 stories below the collapse front (Source: Noah K. murray).

This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].

NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.

Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

The case of the Twin Towers

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words,

The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower…. this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections — which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]— nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses.

When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was

unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse

because

the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.

However, NIST did do one thing in an attempt to substantiate its assertion that the lower floors would not be able to arrest or slow the descent of the upper sections in a gravity-driven collapse. On page 323 of NCSTAR 1-6, NIST cited a paper by civil engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant and his graduate student, Yong Zhou, that was published in January 2002 [7] which, according to NIST, “addressed the question of why a total collapse occurred” (as if that question were naturally outside the scope of its own investigation).

FIG. 6: molten metal was seen pouring out of WTC 2 continuously for the seven minutes leading up to its collapse (Sources: WABC-Tv, NIST).

FIG. 6: molten metal was seen pouring out of WTC 2 continuously for the seven minutes leading up to its collapse (Sources: WABC-Tv, NIST).

In their paper, Bažant and Zhou claimed there would have been a powerful jolt when the falling upper section impacted the lower section, causing an amplified load sufficient to initiate buckling in the columns. They also claimed that the gravitational energy would have been 8.4 times the energy dissipation capacity of the columns during buckling.

In the years since, researchers have measured the descent of WTC 1’s upper section and found that it never decelerated — i.e. there was no powerful jolt [8-9]. Researchers have also criticized Bažant’s use of free-fall acceleration through the first story of the collapse, when measurements show it was actually roughly half of gravitational acceleration [2]. After falling for one story, the measurements show a 6.1 m/s velocity instead of the 8.5 m/s velocity that would be the result of free fall. This difference in velocity effectively doubles the kinetic energy, because it is a function of the square of the velocity.

In addition, researchers have demonstrated that the 58 × 106 kg mass Bažant used for the upper section’s mass was the maximum design load—not the actual 33 × 106 kg service load [10]. Together, these two errors embellished the kinetic energy of the falling mass by 3.4 times. In addition, it has been shown that the column energy dissipation capacity used by Bažant was at least 3 times too low [2].

In January 2011 [11] Bažant and another graduate student of his, Jia-Liang Le, attempted to dismiss the lack-of-deceleration criticism by claiming there would be a velocity loss of only about 3%, which would be too small to be observed by the camera resolution. Le and Bažant also claimed conservation-of-momentum velocity loss would be only 1.1%. However, it appears that Le and Bažant erroneously used an upper section mass of 54.18 × 106 kg and an impacted floor mass of just 0.627 × 106 kg, which contradicted the floor mass of 3.87 × 106 kg Bažant had used in earlier papers.

The former floor mass is representative of the concrete floor slab only, whereas the latter floor mass includes all the other materials on the floor. Correcting this alone increases the conservation-of-momentum velocity loss by more than 6 times, to a value of 7.1%. Additionally, the column energy dissipation has been shown to be far more significant than Bažant claimed. Researchers have since provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over one story would not only decelerate, but would actually arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10].

Other evidence unexplained

The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers. Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed.

Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources (see Fig. 5). NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them [6]. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.

NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6].

Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance — thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13].

As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, have been documented as saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives appears to have been the initial prevailing view among most first responders. “I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a fire marshal.“Everyone I think at that point still thought these things were blown up” [15].

Conclusion

It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Steven Jones is a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University. His major research interests have been in the areas of fusion, solar energy, and archaeometry. He has authored or co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction and evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.


Robert Korol is a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engi- neering and the Engineering Institute of Canada. His major research interests have been in the areas of structural mechanics and steel structures. More recently, he has undertaken experimen- tal research into the post-buckling resistance of H-shaped steel columns and into the energy absorption associated with pulverization of concrete floors.


Anthony Szamboti is a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries. Since 2006, he has authored or co-authored a number of technical papers on the WTC high-rise failures that are published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and in the International Journal of Protective Structures.


Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & En- gineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers. In 2015, he authored AE-911Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

References

[1] NIST: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing (October 2008).
[2] G. Szuladziński and A. Szamboti and R. Johns, International Journal of Protective Structures 4, 117 (2013).
[3] NIST: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (November 20, 2008).
[4] R. Brookman, A Discussion of ‘Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse, Journal of 9/11 Studies (October 2012).
[5] NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (December 1, 2005).
[6] NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investi- gation (Updated September 19, 2011).
[7] Z. Bažant, Y. Zhou, Yong, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128, 2 (2002).
[8] A. Szamboti and G. MacQueen, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refu- tation of the NIST-Bažant Collapse Hypothesis, Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009).
[9] D. Chandler, The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics, Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010).
[10] A. Szamboti and R. Johns, ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses, Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014).
[11] J.-L. Le and Z. Bažant, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 137, 82 (2011).
[12] S. Jones, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse Completely? Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2006).
[13] N. Harrit et al., Open Chemical Physics Journal (April 2009).
[14] G. MacQueen, Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers, Chapter Eight, The 9/11 Toronto Report, Editor: James Gourley (November 2012).
[15] Fire Department of New York (FDNY): World Trade Center Task Force Interviews, The New York Times (October 2001 to January 2002).

September 7, 2016 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Larry Silverstein designed NEW WTC-7 in April of 2000

“Lucky Larry” STILL bragging about his crimes of 9/11/2001

By Kevin Barrett | Veterans Today | March 15, 2016

Larry had the new WTC-7 designed and ready-to-go 17 months before he “pulled” the old one

He may just be a Silver-stein. But “Lucky Larry” sets the gold standard for chutzpah.

Latest example: In the above video, Silverstein says of the new WTC-7, which replaced the one he famously confessed to demolishing on 9/11/01:

We got the designs. And the first design meeting was in April of 2000. And construction began shortly thereafter, in 2002.

One slight problem: If he hadn’t been planning the illegal, un-permitted, homicidal demolitions of WTC-7 and the entire World Trade Center complex that took place on September 11th, 2001, there would have been no point to any such design meeting back in April, 2000 … and no opportunity for beginning construction of a new WTC-7 in 2002.

With the supreme chutzpah that has become his trademark, Silverstein breezes over the demolitions of 9/11/2001 as if they were not even worth remarking on, instead going straight from his new-WTC-7 design meeting in April 2000 to the beginning of construction in 2002.

Memo to Donald Trump: If you’re looking for people who were wildly celebrating the murder of 3,000 people on September 11th, 2001, that would include not only the famous dancing Israelis, but also Larry “Pull It” Silverstein.

In 2001, “Lucky Larry,” who had previously owned only WTC-7, orchestrated a deal with his fellow-ultra-Zionist Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the mobbed-up NY Port Authority, and another Zionist extremist billionaire, Frank Lowy, to sell the entire WTC complex to Silverstein and backers on a 100-year lease. The deal was finalized in July, 2001, and Larry took possession of the buildings … and security arrangements. But first, he hard-balled his insurers into doubling the terror insurance coverage and changing the terms to “instant cash payout.”

David_Dees_Larry_Silverstein_and_Giuliani_demolition

On September 11th, Larry hit the jackpot. The condemned-for-asbestos and largely vacant Twin Towers, with their obsolete communications infrastructure and money-hemorrhaging balance sheet, were both demolished for free – with 3,000 people inside.

Larry should have been at the Windows on the World restaurant at the top of the North Tower, just like every other day. Fortunately, he tells us, his wife reminded him of a dermatologist appointment. His daughter, who always took breakfast with him, made a similarly lame excuse. Both survived … and prospered … while everyone above the 91st floor, including everyone who showed up to have breakfast at Windows on the  World, died miserable deaths.

Lucky Larry indeed.

Larry’s luck held out when he demanded double indemnity – on the basis that he had been “victimized” by two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks, namely the two planes – and got it, to the tune of 4. 5 billion dollars. That’s a hefty cash-payout return on a relatively minor investment. (Silverstein put up less than 15 million of his own money to buy the WTC, and his backers had added a little over 100 million.)

Even after video proof emerged that he had confessed to “pulling” (i.e. demolishing) WTC-7, he still somehow evaded the hangman’s noose.

Then he went back to court to ask for more than $10 billion more – this time not from his own insurers, but from those of the airlines he falsely blamed for the demolitions that he himself had conducted.

But even the mobbed-up 9/11-complicit Zionist judge, Alvin Hellerstein, had had enough. For the full (satirical) story, check out my article:

Hellerstein to Silverstein: No more money for you, schmuck!

But that didn’t stop not-quite-so-Lucky Larry from trying to steal another 500 million from the federal government through an EB-5 visa scam.

Then last month, Larry’s inimitable chutzpah resurfaced when he said that his first thought on looking at the plans for the new South Tower was “it looks like it’s going to topple, it’s going to fall over.” At least if you “pull” on it hard enough, it might. Right, Larry?

Larry’s chutzpah is so monumental that it became the basis of an annual award. See:

Netanyahu Wins Larry Silverstein Award for Chutzpah

Whatever will this unbelievable character do next?

Will someone finally arrest him?

Will we ever see him swing from the gallows?

Or will Lucky Larry’s luck hold out until he finally dies of natural causes, leaving his heirs billions of blood-stained dollars with which to conduct more outrageous Zionist mischief?

March 16, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 4 Comments

Examining the Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Destruction

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports – “building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing”.

How Did They Know?

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.

Certainty of impending collapse

To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing. But to be certain that it will collapse is another. A detailed study of the FDNY accounts by 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen shows that more than half of those who received warnings of WTC 7’s collapse (where a degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that Building 7 was coming down. (The figures calculate to 31 out of 58. See MacQueen’s report “Waiting for Seven…” at page 4.)

Early FDNY announcements of collapse

If someone were observing the fires in WTC 7 and able to determine, in the last few moments of the building’s existence, that a peculiar set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would be one thing. But to receive warnings of the building’s collapse well before this set of circumstances arose raises suspicion. Yet, a detailed study of the FDNY reports shows that of the thirty-three cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more hours in advance, and in six cases warnings were apparently received four or more hours in advance. (See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven…” at page 4.) In other words, the warnings came long before the unique set of circumstances had allegedly come together to cause the building’s collapse.

Precise warnings of collapse

If the collapse warnings were derived from vague worries and concerns, as claimed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the warnings would not have been precise. A complete collapse, such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 on 9/11, was unknown – unless the building was being brought down by controlled demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11, in reference to one of the Towers, “Any time I’ve heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be.” (See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven‚” at page 21.) Nevertheless, somehow, many people knew in advance that WTC 7 would suffer an unprecedented collapse. Which begs the question, “How did they know?” Consider the following exchange from the FDNY oral histories:

  • Q. “Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?”
  • A: “Yes”
  • Q. “You were still there?”
  • A. “Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.”
  • Q. “So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?“
  • A. “Five blocks. Five blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there.”(See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven…” at page 8.)

It is quite remarkable that a debris cloud estimate could be so precise for a collapse that was supposedly caused by unforeseen and unplanned events. Had Building 7 “tipped over,” which would have been more realistic, given the structural damage that was supposed to be the reason for its collapse, the building could actually have ended up crushing several other tall buildings, creating a destruction zone much farther away from the building.

Building 7’s collapse reported in advance by CNN and the BBC

In this BBC video, correspondent Jane Standley reports that Building 7 has collapsed; meanwhile (at the 1:17 mark), a fully intact Building 7 can actually be seen — still standing — behind her. Who fed this information to Standley? Apparently, someone who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself, released that information to the media prematurely.

In another news clip, while Building 7 is seen standing fully erect and showing no signs of impending trauma, CNN’s Aaron Brown gives the following report: “We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing…” Who is he “getting information” from? Again, it appears to be from someone who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself, and who released that information to the media prematurely. Only such an individual could have expected Building 7 to come down.

In sum, both CNN and BBC did not merely report that WTC 7 was damaged or that it might collapse. Instead, they prematurely announced the actual collapse of Building 7. No satisfactory explanation has been given about these premature announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to the announcers, apparently by an unknown person or persons who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself, and who bungled matters by releasing that information to the media prematurely.

More evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 is preserved in this video where an eyewitnesses can be heard saying: “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down soon.” And “The building is about to blow up. Move it back.” And also, “We are walking back. The building is about to blow up.”

These reports were later corroborated by first responder Indira Singh, who, in a radio interview about Building 7, revealed that the FDNY had stated that “We’re going to have to bring it down.“

Countdown…

The testimony of Kevin McPadden, an emergency medical technician and 9/11 first responder, is even more shocking. In a taped interview, McPadden indicated that there was an actual countdown preceding Building 7’s collapse:

“The Red Cross rep was like, he goes over and he says [to us], ‘You gotta stay behind this line because they’re thinking about bringing the building down.’…He goes over and he asks one of the…firefighters what was going on…He came back over with his hand over the radio and [you could hear] what sounded like a countdown. And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard ‘three-two-one,’ and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life! Just run for your life!’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like, BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind…”

NIST’s Response to WTC 7 foreknowledge

NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse in its report on the building’s destruction by implying:

  • (a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the damage to the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and rationally concluded that WTC 7 might collapse; and
  • (b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw the damage to the building and concluded it might collapse passing on this assessment to others (as per NIST Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen on CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario, on Aug. 25, 2008).

It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some firefighters and, apparently, led a few (about seven) of them to worry that the building might collapse. However, the great majority (approximately fifty) who were worried about collapse did not base this worry on the physical damage but on what they were told. (See MacQueen’s “Waiting for Seven…” at page 5.) Moreover, while an engineer may have communicated his opinion, early in the day, that the building might collapse, neither this communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain all of the collective evidence indicating foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse.

Individually, each of the factors discussed above indicates the possibility of foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse: the certainty of Building 7’s impending collapse as expressed and memorialized in the FDNY oral histories, the early announcements made by the FDNY, the precise nature of the early announcements, CNN’s and the BBC’s premature reporting of Building 7’s collapse, and the actual countdown to Building 7’s demise. Collectively, these factors provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this foreknowledge is most readily explained by the fact that Building 7 was brought down in an explosive controlled demolition carefully planned months in advance.

June 15, 2015 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | 3 Comments

How Science Died at the World Trade Center

By Kevin Ryan | Dig Within | February 15, 2015

Science has been misused for political purposes many times in history. However, the most glaring example of politically motivated pseudoscience—that employed by U.S. government scientists to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC)—continues to be ignored by many scientists. As we pass the 10th anniversary of the introduction of that account, it is useful to review historic examples of fake science used for political purposes and the pattern that defines that abuse.

An early example of pseudoscience used to promote a political agenda was the concerted Soviet effort to contradict evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance. For nearly 45 years, the Soviet government used propaganda to foster unproven theories of agriculture promoted by its minister of agriculture, Trofim Lysenko. Scientists seeking favor with the Soviet hierarchy produced fake experimental data in support of Lysenko’s false claims. Scientific evidence from the fields of biology and genetics was banned in favor of educational programs that taught only Lysenkoism and many biologists and geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. This propaganda-fueled program of anti-science continued for over forty years, until 1964, and spread to other countries including China.

In the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway describe several other examples of the misuse of science, spanning from the 1950s to the present. They show how widely respected scientists participated in clearly non-scientific efforts to promote the agendas of big business and big government. Examples include the tobacco industry’s misuse of science to obfuscate the links between smoking and cancer, the military industrial complex’s use of scientists to support the scientifically indefensible Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and several abuses of environmental science.

As Oreskes and Conway made clear, science is about evidence. “It is about claims that can be, and have been, tested through scientific research—experiment, experience, and observation—research that is then subject to critical review by a jury of scientific peers.” In science, if experiments performed do not support a hypothesis, that hypothesis must be rejected. If conclusions fail to pass peer-review due to a lack of supportive evidence or the discovery of evidence that directly contradicts them, those conclusions must be rejected.

From Lysenkoism through the examples given by Oreskes and Conway, politically motivated pseudoscience demonstrates a pattern of characteristics as follows.

  1. There is a lack of experiments.
  2. The results of experiments are ignored or contradicted in the conclusions.
  3. There is either no peer-review or peer-reviewer concerns are ignored.
  4. The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data.
  5. False conclusions are supported by marketing or media propaganda.
  6. Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence are ignored.

All six of these characteristics of pseudo-science are exhibited by the U.S. government investigation into what happened at the WTC on September 11th, 2001. That investigation was conducted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and it had much in common with the examples given by Oreskes and Conway. As with the false science that supported tobacco use, millions of lives were lost as a result—in this case through the “War on Terror.” Like support for the Strategic Defense Initiative, the abuses were focused on supporting the military-industrial complex. And as with the environmental examples, NIST’s manipulations affect everyone on the planet because they prop up a never-ending war.

In terms of historical experience, the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers was unprecedented. No tall building had ever experienced global collapse for any reason other than explosive demolition and none ever has since that time. In terms of observation, nearly everyone who examines the videos from the day recognizes the many similarities to explosive demolition. Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of the demolition theory is that the NIST WTC Reports, which took up to seven years to produce, exhibit all six of the characteristics of politically motivated pseudoscience.

The lack of experiment:

NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions on WTC Building 7. Its primary conclusion, that a few steel floor beams experienced linear thermal expansion thereby shearing many structural connections, could have easily been confirmed through physical testing but no such testing was performed. Moreover, other scientists had performed such tests in the past but since the results did not support NIST’s conclusions, those results were ignored (see peer-review comments below).

The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions:

  • For the Twin Towers, steel temperature tests performed on the few steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is more than one thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST’s hypothesis. NIST responded by exaggerating temperatures in its computer model.
  • Another key requirement of NIST’s explanation for the Twin Towers was that floor assemblies had sagged severely under thermal stress. Floor model tests conducted by my former company Underwriters Laboratories showed that the floor assemblies would sag only 3 to 4 inches, even after removal of all fireproofing and exposure to much higher temperatures than existed in the buildings. NIST responded by exaggerating the results—claiming up to 42-inches worth of floor assembly sagging in its computer model.
  • After criticism of its draft report in April 2005, NIST quietly inserted a short description of shotgun tests conducted to evaluate fireproofing loss in the towers. These results also failed to support NIST’s conclusions because the shotgun blasts were not reflective of the distribution or trajectories of the aircraft debris. Additionally, the tests suggested that the energy required to “widely dislodge” fireproofing over five acre-wide floors—required by NIST’s findings—was simply not available.

There was no peer review and public comments from peers were ignored:

NIST published its own WTC reports and therefore its work was not subject to peer-review as is the case for all legitimate science. The people and companies involved in the NIST investigation were either government employees or contractors dependent on government work and were therefore not objective participants.

In terms of indirect peer-review, the international building construction community has made no changes to building construction standards in response to NIST’s officially cited root causes for the WTC destruction. Furthermore, no existing buildings have been retrofitted to ensure that they do not fail from those alleged causes.

NIST provided a period for public comment on its draft reports but the comments provided by those not beholden to government were not supportive of NIST’s findings. In some cases, as with NIST’s linear expansion claim for WTC 7, independent scientists submitted comments about physical tests they had performed (which NIST had not) that directly contradicted NIST’s findings.

There was one important exception to NIST’s ignoring of public comments. After a physics teacher’s well-publicized comments, NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a vertical distance equivalent to at least eight stories of the building. Structural engineers have since noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance.

The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data:

NIST will not share it computer models with the public. A NIST spokesman declared, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that revealing the computer models would “jeopardize public safety.” Because NIST’s conclusions depend entirely on those computer models, they cannot be verified or falsified by independent scientists.

False conclusions are supported by media or marketing propaganda:

As with the Soviet propaganda machine that supported Lysenkoism and the tobacco industry’s marketing propaganda, NIST’s pseudoscience was fully and uncritically supported by the mainstream media. Hearst Publications, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Skeptic magazine are examples of media that went to great lengths to stifle any questioning of the official account and divert attention from the glaring discrepancies.

NIST depended on that media support as indicated by the timing of its release of reports. NIST’s final report appeared to be scheduled for dual political purposes, to coincide with the seventh anniversary of 9/11 and to give the appearance of finished business at the end of the Bush Administration. The timing of NIST’s other reports coincided with political events as well. These included the draft report on the towers in October 2004—just before the election, the final report on the towers—just before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and NIST’s first “responses to FAQs”—just before the fifth anniversary. All of them appeared to involve politically motivated release dates.

The report release dates allowed time for the media to quickly present the official story while public interest was high, but did not allow time for critical review. With the report on WTC 7, the public was given just three weeks prior to September 11th, 2008 to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making.

Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence were ignored:

Throughout its seven-year investigation, NIST ignored the obvious hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC buildings—demolition. That evidence includes:

  • Free-fall or near-free fall acceleration of all three buildings (now acknowledged by NIST for WTC 7)
  • Photographic and video evidence demonstrating the characteristics of demolition for both the Twin Towers and WTC 7

The WTC reports produced by NIST represent the most obvious example of politically motivated pseudoscience in history. The physical experiments NIST performed did not support its conclusions. The reports were not peer-reviewed and public comments that challenged the findings were ignored. NIST will not share its computer models—the last supposed evidence that supports its conclusions—with the public and therefore its conclusions are not verifiable.

These glaring facts should be readily recognizable by any scientist and, given the unprecedented impact of the resulting War on Terror, this abuse of science should be the basis for a global outcry from the scientific community. The fact that it is not—with even Oreskes and Conway ignoring this most obvious example—indicates that many scientists today still cannot recognize false science or cannot speak out about it for fear of social stigma. It’s possible that our society has not suffered enough to compel scientists to move out of their comfort zones and challenge such exploitation of their profession. If so, the abuse of science for political and commercial purposes will only get worse.

February 15, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 4 Comments

How Brian Williams Can Regain Our Trust

By Kevin Ryan | Dig Within | February 9, 2015

NBC News anchor Brian Williams is taking heat for having repeatedly lied to the public about an Iraq War experience that he never had. Williams has decided to take a few days off to see if the whole affair will blow over but that strategy is not likely to work given the legs that the story has grown. There is a way for Williams to turn it all around, although it would be tougher than anything he has done in the past. He could save face by coming clean on something important that he once reported and never mentioned again.

On September 11, 2001, Williams was covering the terrorist attacks of the day. Late that afternoon a third skyscraper collapsed at the World Trade Center (WTC) and Williams interviewed a New York City fireman named David Restuccio about it. Just after the building collapsed, NBC broadcast the live scene as Williams remarked, “This is like watching the collapse of an active volcano. And the dust from it is not unlike that from a volcano.” He brought Restuccio on and continued, “You guys knew this was coming all day.” Restuccio replied, “We had heard reports that the building [WTC 7] was unstable and that it would be best if it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

This was the point at which a good journalist would have stopped and asked, “It would be taken down”? How could a 47-story skyscraper be “taken down” just like that, in the same place where two other towers had just experienced unprecedented collapse? Instead, Williams carried on as if he had not heard the remark. He went on for the next thirteen and a half years ignoring many questions about 9/11 and the official explanations for those crimes. For example, Williams reported on the “WTC meteorite,” said to be composed of once molten steel. He claimed that it was evidence of “temperatures as hot as the inner earth.” Yet Williams never returned to the subject to clarify that jet fuel-fed office fires cannot melt steel, nor has he reported on the compelling evidence for how steel could have melted at the WTC.

Many people knew that WTC 7 would come down, not just Restuccio. They didn’t think it might come down—they knew with certainty that it would. The collapse of the building was announced hours in advance and somehow BBC and CNN prematurely reported it as having collapsed long before it actually did.

However, the U.S. government position on the matter denies any suggestion of foreknowledge. And the officially reported explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, crafted by the government agency NIST over a period of 7 years, could not have been predicted by anyone. That explanation depends on a series of unpredictable factors that supposedly came together only minutes, or seconds, before the collapse took place. Moreover, the NIST explanation is known to be demonstrably false.

After the NIST WTC 7 Report was finally issued, California physics teacher David Chandler helped NIST to become more honest about the whole thing. That is, he helped NIST admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a period of its descent. In correcting itself, NIST admitted that the building “descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.” NIST clarified in its amended Report that “this free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories.”

As Chandler made clear, buildings cannot free-fall through their own solid structure without the help of explosives. Others, including licensed structural engineers, have noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance. This is not possible except through demolition.

There is no doubt that increasing numbers of people will come to know about WTC 7 and its demolition. They will learn about the military and intelligence agencies that occupied the building, and about the powerful people like Donald Rumsfeld who had curious links to the building and yet lied about their knowledge of its destruction. And they will wonder why the media never covered the facts.

This is where Williams has a chance to use his past reporting on the WTC to regain the public trust. We know that reporters often lie to the public and they do it for a number of understandable, albeit despicable, reasons. But as Williams takes a few days off to consider his career in that cycle of deception, he might also consider what future generations will think and where the practices of intentional media deception will ultimately lead. Someone like Williams will eventually recognize the harm it does and use his or her celebrity status to openly call for the truth about WTC 7. It could be him.

February 10, 2015 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

“High-rise Safety Initiative” exposes 9/11 truth

By Dr. Kevin Barrett | Press TV | March 3, 2014

Do not ever set foot inside a tall building.

According to the US government, steel-frame high-rise buildings can suddenly crumble to dust for no apparent reason, plunging at free-fall acceleration straight into the ground.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) asserts that World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story high-rise, imploded at 5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001 due to modest office fires of undetermined origin. According to NIST, these small fires somehow triggered a new physical phenomenon, unknown to science before 9/11/2001, called “thermal expansion.”

The results looked exactly like a classic controlled demolition.

If NIST were right, skyscrapers everywhere would be in danger of imploding at any time – all it would take would be a few small office fires.

Can tall buildings really just implode? A group of New Yorkers, led by 9/11 victims’ family members, wants to find out. NYCcan.org is launching a campaign called the High Rise Safety Initiative. If passed, the Initiative would force the New York Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Such an investigation would almost certainly conclude that the official story of Building 7’s “collapse” is preposterous.

NIST’s report on WTC-7 is so obviously false that even Dr. Frank Greening – the only independent scientist who has ever made a serious effort to support the government’s position on the destruction of the World Trade Center – finds it ridiculous. Greening, formerly the go-to scientist for the so-called debunkers, is now a WTC-7 “conspiracy theorist.” So is virtually everyone else who has studied the demise of WTC-7.

So the good news is that nobody, not even pro-government people like Frank Greening, really believes NIST’s absurd claims about Building 7. That means that skyscrapers are not likely to start falling down due to wastebasket fires any time soon. “Thermal expansion” is almost certainly a myth – a complete and utter non-threat to the structural integrity of skyscrapers.

But the bad news is that skyscrapers really can suddenly implode at any time: They can be illegally destroyed in permit-free, unregulated demolitions by organized crime networks. And those deceptive demolitions can be disguised as “terrorist attacks” with the complicity of government insiders.

Larry Silverstein, a reputed organized crime figure with links to the Israeli and American governments, purchased the condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center skyscrapers in July 2001. The first thing he did was to double the WTC’s terror insurance policy and hardball the insurers into changing the terms to “cash payout.”

After spending about $15 million of his own money to buy the condemned buildings, two months later – on September 11th, 2001 – “Lucky Larry” hit the jackpot. Controlled demolitions were conducted without permits, without asbestos removal, and without emptying the Twin Towers of people. Silverstein collected $4.6 billion dollars in cash from his insurers, plus rights to rebuild.

Silverstein’s televised admission that he “pulled” or demolished World Trade Center 7 makes him the worst self-confessed insurance fraud criminal in world history.

A few years after demolishing the World Trade Center and collecting billions of “double-indemnity” insurance dollars based on the bizarre notion of two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks – the two planes – Silverstein used his ill-gotten gains to purchase Chicago’s Sears Tower. Shortly thereafter, Silverstein hired Kroll Security, a company implicated in both the 9/11 and anthrax attacks, to guard his new high-rise icon.

The Sears Tower and other skyscrapers really could implode at any time for no apparent reason.

Thousands of lives really are at risk.

The High Rise Safety Initiative, sponsored by NYCcan.org, could help prevent future skyscraper disasters. A new investigation into the destruction of Building 7 could look at all the evidence, including:

*Eyewitness testimony that a countdown to demolition was broadcast over police radio during the seconds before the “collapse” of Building 7.

*Eyewitness testimony that preparatory pre-demolition explosions gutted WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11 before either Tower had collapsed.

*Videotaped proof that WTC owner Larry Silverstein confessed to demolishing WTC-7 on national television.

*Videotaped proof that the BBC and CNN erroneously reported the “collapse” of WTC-7 shortly before it happened, showing that those networks were reading scripts prepared by 9/11 conspirators but mistimed their script-reading.

The lead spokesperson for NYCcan.org’s High-rise Safety Initiative is Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby when the North Tower of the World Trade Center exploded in ten seconds into thousands of tons of sub-100-micron dust, along with some grit and gravel-sized particles.

McIlvaine knows that the Twin Towers did not collapse; they exploded. (See the youtube video “North Tower Exploding” showing the explosions)

Bob McIlvaine knows that more than 1000 victims of the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers did not leave behind so much as the tiniest sliver of bone. They were blasted to dust. Even the meticulous sifting and bucketing of WTC debris could not even find a sliver of fingernail from any of these 1000-plus people.

Other people who were blown to smithereens in the tremendous explosions that destroyed the Twin Towers did leave behind traces of themselves – and absolute, smoking gun proof that the buildings did not fall, but were blown up. That proof consists of the tiny splinters of human bone that were found all over the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, across the street from the World Trade Center, a few years ago.

Bob McIlvaine and the other family members of 9/11 victims deserve the truth about what happened to their loved ones. Only truth and justice can bring them inner peace. And only truth and justice can stop the neocons war on the world and establish world peace. The High Rise Safety Initiative, sponsored by NYCcan.org, could be an important step in that direction.

March 3, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 2 Comments