First a simple debunking of the main official magical theory on how hot kerosene (jet fuel) fires reall are (a necessary fiction, like the GOP does by denying all Climate Scientists, to maintain their fiction)
Jet Fuel [Aviation Kerosene] Didn't Even Bring Down This Tree... Nor do Kerosene heaters/gas stoves melt w use #engineer #architect #nist pic.twitter.com/WZwYUwouho— AE911Truth (@AE911Truth) October 10, 2017
Second, an ex-NIST official explaining why he decide to fight the GOP's lies on 9/11...
Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out | 9/11 Evidence and NIST
In August 2016, Peter Michael Ketcham, a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), began looking into the reports his agency had released years earlier on the collapse of the World Trade Center. What he found shook him to the core. In this poignant half-hour interview, Peter Michael Ketcham tells his story of discovering that the organization where he had worked for 14 years had deliberately suppressed the truth about the most pivotal event of the 21st century. Through his willingness to look openly at what he failed to see in front of him for 15 years, Mr. Ketcham inspires us to believe that we can all muster the courage to confront the truth — and, in so doing, finally heal the wounds of 9/11.
Third, eyewitness reports from first responders confirming explosions were used (is this why GOP are trying to kill first responders in NY by denying them healthcare for illnesses caused by GOP's 9/11 terrorist attack? Cause they are eyewitnesses?)
PDF: 118 Witnesses to Explosions in the FDNY Oral Histories of 9/11
Fourth, a collection of information further confirming - from many EXPERT sources - that the official story of 9/11 really is a big hoax!...
“An Objective Look at the Collapse of WTC 7” by Tony Szamboti
In this presentation, Mr. Szamboti will discuss the essential features of WTC 7’s collapse and examine in-depth the ways in which the National Institute of Standards of Technology (NIST) falsified its modeling and analysis to arrive at a seemingly plausible (but impossible) fire-based collapse scenario. Mr. Szamboti is a mechanical engineer who has published several papers on the WTC destruction, including, most recently, “Some Misunderstandings Related to the WTC Collapse Analysis,” in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Protective Structures. For additional information on this subject please visit: Our main Website http://www.ae911Truth.org Our 50 page evidence Booklet http://www.BeyondMisinformation.org
A FATHER’S SEARCH FOR TRUTH REVEALS CLUES TO A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION“My final summation is that he was walking into the building, and before he got into the building there was a huge explosion, and of course the force of it just threw him back into the open area. That’s why he was picked up so quickly, because the EMTs came down there so quickly. Someone had gotten him out of there and to the morgue before the towers came down.” — Bob McIlvaine
MECHANICAL ENGINEER SENDS OPEN LETTER TO MAIN DEFENDER OF THE 9/11 OFFICIAL ACCOUNT, ZDENĚK BAŽANT “This open letter is being sent to you to request that you correct your four papers on the collapse of the WTC Towers, which were published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.” — Tony Szamboti
On June 19, 2016, Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has studied the World Trade Center collapses intensively for the past ten years, sent an open letter to Northwestern civil engineering Professor Zdeněk Bažant. Dr. Bažant is the author of four articles in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that purport to explain why the lower sections of the WTC Twin Towers provided no discernible resistance to the falling upper sections.
11% of AIA Delegates Vote ‘Yes’ onSupporting New WTC 7 Investigation Near-Threefold Increase Underscores Growing Awareness
At the Annual Business Meeting of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) held in Philadelphia on May 21, 2016, representatives of the AIA’s local chapters, state organizations, and national governing bodies voted on whether the AIA should officially support a new WTC 7 investigation. Resolution 16-3, which was sponsored by 97 AIA members affiliated with AE911Truth, garnered 11% of the delegates’ votes, losing 529 to 4,176. The 11% tally represents nearly a threefold increase over the 4% won last year. Dan Barnum, a fellow of the AIA and an AE911Truth board member, introduced the resolution with Bob McIlvaine, a 9/11 family member and Philadelphia native, standing by his side.
CANADIAN CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCHERS DISPROVE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF WTC 7’S DESTRUCTION Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires.
Prior to publishing these papers, the team of researchers carefully reviewed the work of Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, who had published a paper shortly after 9/11 focusing on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” Bažant’s paper presented “a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.” Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires. As Korol explains, “WTC 7 is a particularly useful example, because there isn't the concern about trying to predict the amount of heat generated by spewing jet fuel and having it ignited within a building. It's the materials within the building that generate the heat release.” The greater certainty about the material properties involved would allow the team to evaluate whether WTC 7 could have collapsed as a result of burning materials being ejected from WTC 1 and igniting fires on the 12th and 13th floors. The team’s analysis eventually led them to conclude that even with very high estimates for the amount of combustible materials present in office buildings — using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes — and making many other generous assumptions, such as having two floors “totally ablaze with raging inferno fires,” WTC 7 still would not collapse. Blockquote tall Or NIST could not have been correct in claiming that such a failure mechanism could have resulted in the collapse. Korol’s July 2015 paper, “Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7,” used accepted equations associated with thermodynamics and heat transfer to determine how much heat could be generated from office fires. Studying the type of fire that would occur in a typical office arrangement with cubicle partitions, he and his fellow researchers derived the temperature that would have been reached based on the heat release rate of combustible materials identified by NIST and others. Given that high burn rates do not generally last longer than about 30 minutes and that fires in office buildings do not occur over entire floors simultaneously, Korol says that the assumption of having the entire area of the 12th and 13th floors ablaze was “a ridiculously conservative estimate for the purposes of determining the consequences to the building.” Even then, the researchers showed the temperatures to be insufficient to push a girder off its seat near Column 79, thus disproving NIST’s claim that such a failure mechanism initiated the collapse of the building. In the subsequent February 2016 paper, “The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the “simple analysis” approach,” Korol considered the “virtually impossible circumstance” that the building experienced an inferno on two adjacent stories simultaneously. Noting that collapses do not occur instantaneously, Korol explains that even if two-thirds of the columns in a building are somehow “wiped out by virtue of the high heat, then the remaining one-third would still be sufficient to prevent collapse.”
GRIFFIN TAKES ON BUSH, CHENEY, AND THE ‘MIRACULOUS’ DESTRUCTION OF THE WTC TOWERS“ Given how disastrous the official account has been for America and the world in general, perhaps some newspapers or TV networks will have the courage to point out that the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11, like the Bush-Cheney argument for attacking Iraq, was a lie.”David Ray Griffin
While the first part of Bush and Cheney focuses on the broader issues suggested by the title (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the proliferation of Islamophobia, the shredding of the US Constitution, and the advent of drone warfare) the second part is devoted to Griffin’s detailed research into evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Griffin ties what happened on 9/11 to actions, or non-actions, by the “Bush-Cheney administration,” although he gives the former vice-president greater weight than he does the former president. Nevertheless, Griffin is clearly stating that the decisions made by this administration on 9/11—and in the years that followed—have had devastating consequences for the world.
SHERMER ARTICLE OFFERS GLIB DISMISSALS OF ‘CONSPIRACY THEORIES’
In his articles and talks, Michael Shermer puts a great deal of emphasis on the perils of self-deception. What he seems less concerned about are actual deceptions. The founder of Skeptic Magazine is a professional conspiracy denier. Name a potential conspiracy, and Shermer will tell you why it didn’t happen. But rather than offer solid evidence that can stand up to scrutiny, he’ll reach for a humorous one-liner that he knows will satisfy an uncritical audience. For example, in his 2010 TED Talk “The pattern behind self-deception,” Shermer uses a joke to dispense with people who challenge the official 9/11 narrative: “They think it was an inside job by the Bush administration. You know how we know that 9/11 was not initiated by the Bush administration? It worked.” The line gets a big laugh, as it is intended to do. But is the inherent argument rational? Or is it rhetorical manipulation? The audience members leave not only pleased with Shermer but with themselves. They get to feel superior to those incompetent government types who could simply never pull off a conspiracy this clever. In his articles and presentations, Shermer offers colorful examples of “theories” that he claims have no credibility, and he deftly hints that these are typical of many or most “conspiracy theories.” Using one flimsy example or another, he guides the audience to pat dismissals of any challenges to mainstream narratives. After all, why go through the hard work of confronting real evidence when flippancy is so much more economical? In the same TED Talk, Shermer points to the unsubstantiated theory that the Bush administration placed explosive devices in the levees around New Orleans so that the city would be flooded during Hurricane Katrina. He alleges that there are those who purport to have found some of these devices after the fact. Why is this example typical? We never find out. We are just expected to accept that it is. Rather than deal with the substance of arguments against any official story, Shermer will focus on why people believe the things that he insists are delusions, or he’ll push the idea that it would be too difficult for participants in a conspiracy to keep the secret. For him, it’s not about evidence, it’s about the psychological makeup of the people he is trying to discredit. He calls that science, though some would call it misdirection.
A Message from Peter Michael KetchamFormer NIST Researcher
Fifteen years after 9/11, the events of that day still deeply affect our collective consciousness as well as our national decisions and actions. Last summer I began to seriously investigate those events—in particular, the collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. My initial reaction was one of anger and disbelief. How did I not see this before? How could the highly respected National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), my former employer of fourteen years, have conducted an investigation that appeared to be fraudulent? After wrestling with the fury I felt about my own ignorance and blindness, I asked the following question: Where are the experts? What do they have to say on the matter? It wasn't long before I discovered a number of high-quality documentaries and publications produced by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). For me, this was a key turning point. Had I not encountered the careful research presented by AE911Truth, and had they not still been active, I probably would have moved on. But instead, encouraged and enabled by their progress, I decided to speak out. Now I’m urging you to join me in supporting this great organization so that they may continue to be the leader that is fundamental in the fight for truth—a truth we all know is necessary if we are ever to heal the wounds of 9/11.
Frequently Asked Question About The Fake Science The GOP pushed for 9/11
FAQ #1: WHO DEMOLISHED THE TWIN TOWERS AND BUILDING 7 AND WHY?
We do not know who the perpetrators of this crime are. Identifying the culprits is the purpose of a real criminal investigation. However, we are able to provide overwhelming evidence of a cover-up of this crime. In addition, scientific forensic evidence indicates that only individuals who could gain long-term access inside the highly secure WTC skyscrapers and obtain advanced thermitic materials could have orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #2: WHAT ABOUT THE PLANES THAT SLAMMED INTO THE TWIN TOWERS? WOULDN’T THEY HAVE DISTURBED THE DEMOLITION DEVICES?
Some of the demolition devices were undoubtedly disturbed by the plane impacts, but not enough to prevent the rest of the devices from performing adequately. Even the NIST report states that the collapse of the North Tower started on a floor with fairly minor structural damage. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #3: WHAT’S YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON (DEW) HYPOTHESIS?
The DEW hypothesis is not supported by the forensic evidence, nor can it explain the available evidence, including the molten iron microspheres documented by USGS and RJ Lee, the molten metal at Ground Zero and the active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #4: WHY WEREN’T THE SOUNDS THAT WERE HEARD DURING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WTC SKYSCRAPERS ON 9/11 AS LOUD AS THE BLASTS HEARD IN VIDEOS OF KNOWN CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS?
Many sounds of explosions were in fact heard at the WTC on 9/11, and their continuous and rapid nature would make individual explosions very difficult to hear. In addition, thermite incendiary materials, which were identified in the WTC dust, create less noise than conventional explosives. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #5: WHAT CAUSED THE ISOLATED HIGH-SPEED EJECTIONS OF PULVERIZED DUST AND DEBRIS FROM THE TOWERS?
Video evidence shows that these ejections were composed of pulverized building materials, and they occurred at isolated, geometrically precise locations, in an engineered pattern which are attributable to explosives – not air pressure from above. In addition, the ejection speeds were too high to have been caused by the pressure of the collapsing structure above. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #6: WHY DOES AE911TRUTH REPRESENT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS?
Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #7: AREN’T THE RED-GRAY CHIPS IDENTIFIED IN THE WTC DUST MERELY PRIMER PAINT FROM THE WTC STEEL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS?
Key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the chemical composition of the red-gray chips – and vice versa. More importantly, scientific tests have revealed that the red-gray chips ignite at 430º C, creating molten iron as a reaction product – characteristics that confirm they are thermitic material and not primer paint. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #8: WHAT IS NANOTHERMITE? COULD IT HAVE BEEN USED TO DEMOLISH THE WTC TOWERS?
Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal that produces temperatures well in excess of 4000° F when ignited, certainly high enough to allow cuts through the structural steel of the Twin Towers. Nanothermite is a nano-engineered variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive, intensifying its destructive power. Residues of thermite and nanothermite were discovered in the WTC dust, which indicates they were used to destroy the WTC skyscrapers. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #9: WERE THE TWIN TOWERS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE AIRPLANES?
Yes. Airplane impact tests that were conducted during the design of the Twin Towers showed that the skyscrapers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which has more energy upon impact than the 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. In the following years, lead WTC structural engineer John Skilling, WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson and WTC construction manager Frank Demartini made statements that underscore that analysis. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ # 10: DID WTC 7 OWNER LARRY SILVERSTEIN ADMIT TO ORDERING THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING?
Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” statement is so cryptic and vague that it is impossible to know for sure what he was referring to. However, according to Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Silverstein tried to get approval to demolish WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. Even though Silverstein’s statements have no bearing on the scientific evidence that proves WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, he should still be questioned in a future WTC investigation.
A more detailed answer is available here.
A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #11: DOES THE NIST WTC 7 COMPUTER ANIMATION OF THE COLLAPSE PROVE THAT THE SKYSCRAPER CAME DOWN BY FIRE?
No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #12: WHERE ARE THE 9/11 WHISTLEBLOWERS?
Many of those who cannot accept the scientific evidence that refutes the official story of the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11/2001 argue, "If 9/11 was an inside operation, surely at least one whistleblower would have come forward by now. You couldn't keep something like that secret." While at first blush this argument might seem to be logical, closer examination shows that it makes no sense. Since scientific evidence has clearly shown that the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers cannot be true, the theory that the official story must be true because there have been "no 9/11 whistleblowers" is entirely specious. A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #13: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THE WTC SKYSCRAPERS?
Arguably, no question surrounding 9/11 arouses more intense interest than this one. An investigation of 9/11 will certainly not be complete until we know who perpetrated the crimes and until they are brought to justice. Crime scene investigators know that, "Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err." (Paul Kirk, Crime Investigation) A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #14: WHAT WAS THE MOLTEN METAL SEEN POURING OUT OF THE SOUTH TOWER MINUTES BEFORE ITS COLLAPSE — STEEL AND IRON, OR ALUMINUM AND/OR LEAD?
Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important? A more detailed answer is available here.
FAQ #15: VARIOUS AUTHORS CLAIM THAT NUCLEAR BLASTS CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. WHY DOES AE911TRUTH NOT ENDORSE THIS CLAIM?
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is not aware of any evidence that supports the claim that nuclear blasts occurred at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. AE911Truth does not endorse that claim, nor does it endorse any theories resulting from it, nor does it link to websites and publications where such theories are promoted, for the reasons given below. A more detailed answer is available here.
Justice In Focus: Opening Remarks by Mark Crispin Miller
Mark Crispin Miller kicks off the Justice In Focus symposium on September 10, 2016, with incisive opening remarks critiquing the concept of "conspiracy theory" and blasting the notion that we should believe something because the government says it's true. Miller is a professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University and the celebrated author of such books as "Boxed In: The Culture of TV" and "The Bush Dislexicon."
Even now the GOP pushes fake science on climate change and we have seen how unscientific they are during a crisis (panic seems to be their main mode of operating, such as with the vaccines debacle, which makes sense as fear kills reason and fear is what they need to push their lies with any success). Trump's Administration of un-scientific fools (for example the unscientific climate change denial in the EPA) is a result of what the GOP started under the Bush Administration.
More proofs of treason...