Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Category: World Trade Center

If there were a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out through the cooling air exhaust vents. If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient oxygen to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

By Chris Sarns
Part 5 (below) was originally published on September 26, 2013
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

As early as May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acknowledged the problem with the diesel fuel fire hypothesis for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, writing: “Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis is needed to resolve this issue.” — FEMA, Chapter 5, page 31

Nonetheless, in its June 2004 Progress Report, NIST continued the diesel fuel fire hypothesis, despite having the data that proved such a fire did not exist in the building: “The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.” — NIST Progress Report, Appendix L, page 51 [PDF page 940]

NIST’s Shyam Sunder misinformed Popular Mechanics in its March 2005 article “Debunking the 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on Floor 5 of WTC 7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.

The magazine wrote: “Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. ‘There was no firefighting in WTC 7,’ Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: ‘Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time.’”

A month later, in April 2005, NIST published an interim report on WTC 7 that said essentially the same thing: “This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.” — NIST Part IIC, April 5, 2005, page 38.

Read more

March 29, 2013
Hang the Bankers.com


9/11 has been one of the biggest events in recent history that sparked a mass awakening across the world.

There has been much debate as to how it happened, who is responsible and why.

To this day about 1/3 of americans do not believe the official story.

In other areas of the world as much as 90% of the country does not believe the official story.

Here is a list of 24 facts that cannot be debunked about 9/11.

1) Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero. Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’

2) 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation. Richard Gage, Founder. ‘Explosive Evidence’, ‘Blueprint for Truth’, ‘AE911′, ‘Toronto Hearings’, ‘Kevin Ryan’.

3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′.

4) Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 while running war games. ‘Stand down order’. “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?”. Norman Minetta testimony. “Gave order to shootdown Flight 93.”, ‘NORAD Drills’.

5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”, ‘Max Cleland resigned’, ‘John Farmer’.

6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly missing a frame. ‘Sheraton Hotel’, “Double tree’, ‘Citgo”.

7) Osama Bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” CIA created, trained and funded “Al Qaeda/Taliban” during the Mujahideen. OBL was a CIA asset named ‘Tim Osman’. OBL Reported dead in Dec 2001 (FOX).

8) 100′s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. 9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. “Explosions in the lobby and sub levels”, ‘Firefighter explosions’, ‘Barry Jennings’, ‘William Rodriguez’.

Read more

By AE911Truth Staff
Feb. 2, 2017

Earlier this month, the Mobile, Alabama, chapter of the American Institute of Architects hosted AE911Truth’s one-hour continuing education course, The Third Tower: Solving the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which 38 AIA members attended.

Credit is provided to Institute members who take the course because AE911Truth is an AIA CES-approved provider of continuing education. Its seven registered courses can be found at AE911Truth.org/Continuing-Ed.

AE911Truth founder and CEO Richard Gage, AIA, presented the information-packed course on WTC 7’s troubling collapse after chapter members wrapped up the business portion of their monthly meeting, held on Thursday, January 19, at the famous Oyster House in nearby Spanish Fort.

While barely-visible alligators lurked below the water’s surface just outside the restaurant, any “biting” skeptics inside were less apparent. Perhaps that’s because Gage presented only the facts about this 47-story high-rise, which fell symmetrically at free-fall acceleration in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition on the afternoon on 9/11.

Gage began with an overview of Building 7 and then proceeded to list the observable elements of its collapse. The architects in the audience learned about the strategies employed in high-rise steel-frame design — strategies that have rendered skyscrapers immune from destruction by fire.

They also learned the series of alleged failures in the collapse initiation theory advanced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology — and why more than 2,750 architects and engineers agree that NIST’s assumptions and conclusions are invalid.

Then they learned the 10 standard features of controlled demolition, all of which are exhibited in the destruction of WTC 7.

When Gage asked for a show of hands after his presentation, the architects who indicated that a new investigation was needed far outnumbered those who didn’t.

Read more

“Making this film was a calling, an effort to wake up people to the danger of our times and to help them understand that, as Americans, we have the capacity to face this deception and become the liberty-minded nation we’ve always thought we were.”Charles Ewing Smith

By Marti Hopper, Ph.D.
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
Jan. 27, 2017

Two years ago Hollywood sound editor Charles Ewing Smith revisited the unused footage of the psychology professionals whose interviews appear at the end of the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out (ESO).

Having been co-executive producer and co-editor of that film, Smith was already well acquainted with the footage. As he replayed the extensive comments that had been cut, he found in these social scientists’ voices a compelling message that he felt needed to be shared with the world.

So in January 2015 he began a personal quest to make a documentary that would capture the essence of their insights. His vision became a reality last year. The Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11 was completed in July 2016 and was subsequently made into a DVD, which is now available in the AE911Truth store.

Plaudits have already started pouring in. Among the first to hail the film was Shari Bernson, executive producer and director of development for Colorado Public Television (CPT12), who arranged for the PBS affiliate to air it during a fundraising week. In August 2016, CPT12 premiered a condensed version — 40 minutes shorter than the 1-hour, 48-minute full-length documentary.

Bernson makes a convincing case for having run the film on her public television station. “The Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11 takes the discussion of questioning the official story of 9/11 to a whole new level,” she says. “The documentary takes on an uncomfortable subject and brings it into the light, exploring how individuals and communities can heal and move forward.”

Subsequent to that showing, The Demolition of Truth’s next public venue was the 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, California, where it had its theatrical world premiere three days before the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

Then, at the sixth annual Metropolitan Film Festival of New York City, held last December, the film had the honor of being named “Best Documentary Feature.”

Read more

On Jan. 20, AE911Truth released a statement in response to the tragic collapse of the iconic Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran, which reportedly claimed dozens of lives. The 17-story high-rise had large fires that burned for some 3 ½ hours before it suddenly came crashing to the ground.

After carefully analyzing videos that were available online and reviewing the circumstances surrounding the shocking demise of this building, we determined that it was our responsibility to call for the possible use of explosives to be thoroughly investigated.

Issuing this press release across the U.S., the U.K., and the Middle East — including in Iran — is costing AE911Truth $1,850. We encourage you to chip in toward covering this unanticipated expense, if you are so inclined. Thank you as always for your support.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 20, 2017

Tehran Building Collapse: Investigators Must Consider Explosives

NEW YORK – At approximately 11:30 AM local time yesterday in Tehran, an iconic 17-story high-rise known as the Plasco Building tragically collapsed after being on fire for some 3 ½ hours. It is not yet known how many firefighters and civilians were killed, but early reports say that anywhere from 20 to 50 are feared dead.

Based on preliminary analysis of many videos of the collapse, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)—a nonprofit that represents more than 2,750 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation of the 2001 World Trade Center disaster—strongly urges President Rouhani, Iranian authorities, and the people of Iran to thoroughly investigate the possible use of explosives in the Plasco Building’s shocking demise, and to act swiftly and decisively to preserve the physical evidence.

Read more

Jon Gold
1/17/2017
911 Blogger

If you don’t know who he is, Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry wrote, “though he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses… In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.”

Over the years, we have read several reports having to do with the “suspicious behavior” of Philip Zelikow. As it states in the linked article “on October 9th, 2010, during “Freedom Watch” with Judge Napolitano, 9/11 Whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer alleges that during a lunch in Philadelphia, a 9/11 Commissioner told him that, “everybody on the commission was covering for someone.” The following week, Judge Napolitano asked Philip Zelikow to appear on the show to talk about this. He REFUSED.”

I had read another story recently where Zelikow refused an “on-camera interview,” and it occurred to me that I have seen him do things like refuse interviews or comments several times over the years. In the article that I read, it states “Zelikow (they spelled it Zeleco, but I fixed it) declined an on-camera interview but says he pulled no punches and says the commission was well aware of the NSA’s findings about al Qaeda even if the raw intelligence wasn’t fully explored.”

That is bullshit. The idea that they “pulled no punches” or were “well aware of the NSA’s findings about al Qaeda” considering the lengths they went to avoid the NSA, is laughable.

Anyway, I did a little research and found other instances where Zelikow refused a comment or interview.

In this report from 2004, it says “through a Miller Center spokesperson, Zelikow declined to comment.” In this report from 2006, it says “Zelikow didn’t respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers” (that is probably my favorite example). In this report from 2008, it says “calls to 9/11 Executive Director Philip Zelikow seeking comment were not returned and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean could not yet be reached.” In this report from 2008, it says “Zelikow refused to be interviewed in person for Shenon’s book, insisting instead that all questions be submitted in writing via email, which was also the way he answered them” (to be fair, that report actually gets into correspondence between Phil Shenon and Zelikow).

Normally, when you hear that someone refuses to comment or refuses an interview, you AUTOMATICALLY think that particular someone has something to hide. Well, NOTHING is different in this case. Philip Zelikow needs to answer for everything that he has done.

In the “Post-9/11 World” we are asked to report “suspicious behavior.” What number do I call to report Philip Zelikow’s behavior?

Jan. 18,2017
911 Blogger

With Barack Obama leaving the White House and his own 9/11 legacy to held to be held to account, a few questions really must be asked about how Trump figures into the history of 9/11.

1. Is President Elect Trump and his Justice Department going to be open to allowing lawsuits and inquiries to go forward?

2. How Truth is Trump?

Trump is willing to call out fake news media in a way that has never happened before by any contemporary President. Maybe I missed it but the only thing that hasn’t been lobbed at him is 9/11 Truth “conspiracy” sympathizer.

Do we have any evidence that Donald Trump knows more about 9/11 from public comments then or now?

In this first clip around 2:35, Trump sounds shades of Jerome Hauer in his answer to the reporter who asks how a building that was made to take plane impacts could be destroyed.

Former NIST employee of 14 years Peter Michael Ketcham makes his first public appearance since speaking out against the NIST World Trade Center investigation in Europhysics News, the magazine of the European Physical Society.

Chris Sarns, a member of AE911Truth, did an analysis of the destruction of WTC 7 in a four part series. The fourth part is below. Follow the link to read all four parts.

By Chris Sarns

I first noticed the conundrum that suggested that the “10-story gouge” in the side of WTC 7 could not have actually existed back on September 6, 2006, while I was “debating” with Ryan Mackey in an online forum: See Conundrum in June 2004 Progress Report.

NIST’s first report, published two years earlier, referred to the “middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground.” It then went on to read: “No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.” — NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907] See June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5).

Obviously, debris large enough to create a 10-story gouge, one-fourth to one-third the width of the building, would have landed in the first floor lobby, along with everything it brought down, including the third-floor lobby.

NIST depicted this “damage” in the graphic on page 23 as “Possible region of impact damage” and again on pages 31 and 32 [PDF pages 920 and 921] as “Approximate region of impact damage.”

Also, 9/11 researcher Winston Smith found another statement that conflicted with NIST’s 10-story gouge theory in the report on WTC 7 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Chapter 5 on page 20. It read: “According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Chapter 5, WTC 7.

Later I found still two more quotes that were in conflict with NIST’s theory of the 10-story gouge.

The first quote came from FDNY Chief Frank Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesey streets. Referring to “building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower,” Fellini said: “When it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street.” See World Trade Center Task Force Interview—Chief Frank Fellini—Interview Date: December 3, 2001.

The second quote was an obfuscated comment buried in NIST’s Progress Report. Only after careful reading does it become clear what NIST meant in referring to “debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to the 5th floor*), noted that the atrium glass was still intact.” — NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907]


Photo in a post about the “10-story gouge” at the JREF Forum on April 10, 2007.

*The atrium, not the damage, extended from the ground floor to the fifth floor. Thus, the “10-story gouge” should have taken out much of the atrium glass; but it didn’t, according to this NIST report. See The Evidence for the “10-Story Gouge.”

Read more

AE911Truth — Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11

Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in its November 2008 final report, NIST reworded its comments on shear studs to give the appearance that none were used on the floor girders.

MISSING SHEAR STUDS

By Chris Sarns and Judy Shelton

Part 1 of Chris Sarns’ report, which examines the burned-out fire in WTC 7, is available here.

Part 2 of Chris Sarns’ report, which examines NIST’s claim of thermal expansion, is available here.

Part 3 (below) was originally published on August 22, 2013.

NIST’s final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, issued in November 2008, has many flaws, including blatant fraud.

If we go back to its June 2004 Progress Report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referenced shear studs, which are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place and to impart stability and strength to buildings.

But in its final report four years later, NIST reworded its comments on shear studs to give the appearance that none were used on the floor girders.

Why would NIST make this fraudulent statement?

To know the answer, one needs to understand NIST’s collapse theory, which goes like this:

1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall failed at Floor 13.

2. That failure caused the collapse of Floors 13 through 6.

3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckled and brought down the entire building.

Obviously, this scenario posited by NIST sounds more credible if the key girder isn’t being held firmly in place with shear studs. So, then, by magically omitting the shear studs, NIST validates its theory that the key girder failed.

Compare the two quotes from NIST below.

In this first paragraph excerpt of its 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs “were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.” (By the way, the girder associated with column 79 was not a core girder.)

“Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs.* Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center.** Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.” — NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, pages 6-7 [PDF pages 895-896]

Read more

Better Tag Cloud