Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Category: World Trade Center

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.


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

NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.

By Chris Sarns
Architects and Engineers for 911/Truth

Part 2 (below) was originally published on June 10, 2013.

NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.

For example, NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS).

“Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 32 [PDF page 74]

“[O]nly the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis.” — NCSTAR 1A, page 36 [PDF page 78]

To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST had to assume high steel temperatures. It applied the heat in 1½ seconds over the entire northeast part of Floor 13. This faulty method of calculating temperatures, though, does not allow for the reality of heat dispersal or for the inevitable beam sagging.

Interestingly, NIST’s model heated the floor beams but not the concrete slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the shear studs failure is fraudulent.

“The girder and beam temperatures were assumed to be 500° C and 600° C, respectively, and the slab was assumed to remain unheated.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 349 [PDF page 393]

“Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600° C for the beams and 500° C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 352 [PDF page 396]

“The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103° C. . . . When the beam temperatures had reached 300° C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams, leaving the top flanges of the beams essentially unrestrained laterally.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 352 [PDF page 396]

“This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16-story ANSYS and 47-story LS-DYNA analyses.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 353 [PDF page 397]

Read more

Support AIA resolution for a new 911 investigation

All things being equal, the fire would have spread consistently. But the NIST computer model inexplicably bypassed the offices to the southwest of column 79, burned around column 79 on the east side, and then, two hours later, burned the offices to the southwest of column 79.


By Chris Sarns
Dec. 14, 2016
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Editor’s Note: To this day, most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed a few hours after the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on this building’s collapse has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. They point out that the NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review — the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories.

Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. Sarns has been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7.

The studies in this five-part series, written for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and originally published between May and September 2013, represent years of work that Sarns did in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that NIST’s theory of a fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading. The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings.

Part 1 of Sarns’ series (below) was first published in May 2013, when close to 2,000 architects and engineers at AE911Truth were demanding a new investigation. By December 2016, the number of A/E petition-signers had swelled to nearly 2,750.

In this five-part series, I will expose and disprove NIST’s false claims in five critically important areas:

BURNED-OUT FIRE — The timing of the fire on Floor 12 exposes NIST’s false claim that fire led to the collapse.
MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION — NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation.
MISSING SHEAR STUDS — NIST’s claim in its Final Report about the lack of shear studs on the floor support girder between columns 44 and 79 is exposed.
FICTITIOUS DEBRIS DAMAGE — The fictitious “10-story gouge” claimed early on by NIST in WTC 7’s south face is exposed.
NON-EXISTENT DIESEL FUEL FIRE — NIST’s fraudulent diesel fuel fire hypothesis is exposed.

NOTE: Quotes from NIST’s WTC 7 reports are shown in Bold Light Blue.

The timing of the fire on Floor 12 exposes NIST’s false claim that fire led to the collapse.

Below, the four images in the middle column are photographs taken of World Trade Center 7 at four different times in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

The four graphics in the left column are my approximations, using the photographs as a guide, of where—and at what times—a fire was actually burning on Floor 12.

And the four graphics in the right column are NIST’s ANSYS computer model of where the fires were burning in the building at the same four times.

“Note that only window glass breaking times were prescribed in the fire model. The observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and video were not a model input.” — NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, page 378 [PDF page 444]

NIST will not release the input data because doing so, it claims, might “jeopardize public safety.”

Read more

Administrator’s Note: The answer is yes.

The law now says they can, but the debate rages on.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
December 14, 2016
The American Conservative

Surviving 9/11 victims, as well as the families and loved ones of those who died that day, say they have reams of evidence linking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the al-Qaeda hijackers—and they want their day in court, which may result in billions of dollars in damages.

In addition, proponents say such a lawsuit would finally force accountability on the kingdom, which despite being a longtime ally of the U.S. had a role in the birth of Wahhabism, the extremist cornerstone of faith that inspired al-Qaeda in the first place. Funding for the spread of that strain of Islam across the Middle East and elsewhere has been traced to members of the House of Saud for decades. So has financing for terrorism.

Up until September, the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) appeared to preclude civil action in U.S. courts against a foreign government for acts of international terrorism unless strict requirements were met—the toughest being that the government in question had to be on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, which Saudi Arabia is not. There were also hurdles to pass under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Nonetheless, some 9,000 civil lawsuits were filed on behalf of 9/11 victims. Those lawsuits have been locked in a back-and-forth battle between the victims and the Saudi defendants over whether the U.S. has jurisdiction, bouncing from the U.S. District Court of New York to the Second Circuit District of Appeals for over a decade. Sometimes the 9/11 victims have had the headwinds, other times the defendants, but there seemed to be no final word on whether these cases could go forward.

Until now. The Justice Against Terrorism Act (JASTA) passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and it became law in September when Congress overrode the president’s veto. It gives the plaintiffs their strongest tool yet to see these cases through to a long-awaited conclusion.

But is passing a law that chisels away the last vestiges of foreign-state immunity the best way to handle the grievances of the 9/11 loved ones? Will it spur reciprocal legislation by foreign governments, which may now feel emboldened to bring Washington to court for perceived crimes, like funding militia groups or rebels that have committed violent acts, a.k.a. “terrorism,” against their people?

Skepticism for the bill seems to come from all directions—particularly among the legal establishment, former diplomats, and administration officials. Even foreign leaders have weighed in, with French parliamentarian Pierre Lellouche saying JASTA “will cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences.”

President Barack Obama, whose administration lobbied Congress hard against JASTA, warned in his September veto message against taking the role of fighting international terrorism out of the hands of national-security officials and putting it into the judiciary’s lap. Specifically:

Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel.

Other critics, including a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, have ridiculed JASTA as an empty political effort to placate the 9/11 victims and assuage anti-Saudi sentiment, noting that the final bill was massaged to put more restraints on damages and allow the State Department to put a “stay” on cases indefinitely if it can certify it is in “good faith discussions” with the defendant toward a resolution.

“I think it was a cheap, political shot,” Freeman told TAC, calling the Saudi lawsuits “a witch hunt.” “This is utterly irresponsible, and it brings great discredit to the United States and does nothing to help the people it is supposed to benefit, so what’s so good about it?”

Even so, he said, the new law brings the U.S. closer to the embrace of creeping international law. “There has been a trend toward breaking down sovereign immunity on human-rights issues and subjecting states to international court’s jurisdiction, and JASTA walks right into that,” Freeman claims.

In fact, in November, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to which the U.S. is not a party, raised the possibility that members of the U.S. armed forces and the CIA could be indicted in that tribunal based on reports of detainee torture in Afghanistan and in secret overseas prisons.

In addition to creating “an open season for lawyers to go after foreign governments for compensation for actions they might or might not have been able to control,” says former CIA foreign-service officer and TAC contributor Phil Giraldi, JASTA “raises the specter of of the U.S. again being shown to hold double standards for itself and others as the federal government has consistently blocked any recourse to our courts for people we have tortured or renditions by citing state secrets privilege.” Therefore JASTA might further encourage targeted countries to “take reciprocal action against U.S. officers and government employees.”

But for the 9/11 loved ones and their lawyers supporting the bill, these are familiar arguments that just don’t ring true.

Read more

Earlier in November, Europhysics News released its first issue since the publication of “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses,” which has now been viewed nearly 350,000 times since its release — and which even caused the magazine’s server to break down at one point.

On page 43 is a startling and extraordinary letter to the editor by a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Peter Michael Ketcham, who worked at NIST from 1997 until 2011.

In a letter to the editor, the former NIST employee speaks out about the report NIST issued regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. That letter is below.

I was a member of the NIST technical staff during the period 1997-2011. I initially joined the High Performance Systems and Services Division and later became a member of what was, at the time, the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division of the Information Technology Laboratory.

My fellow NIST employees were among the finest and most intelligent people with whom I have ever worked.

I did not contribute to the NIST WTC investigation or reports. But in August of this year, I began to read some of those reports. As I then watched several documentaries challenging the findings of the NIST investigation, I quickly became furious. First, I was furious with myself. How could I have worked at NIST all those years and not have noticed this before? Second, I was furious with NIST.

The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations.

The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence. Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration.

Read more

911 Blogger
Nov. 14,2016

From the History Commons Groups blog:

Many entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons, covering various events relating to the 9/11 attacks, including a number of anti-terrorism training exercises held in the years leading up to 9/11 and various incidents from the day of September 11, 2001, itself.

Numerous Exercises Prepared for a Terrorist Attack in New York

Many new timeline entries describe training exercises that were held in New York before 9/11. These include Operation ICE, the city’s largest ever terrorism response exercise, which was held in November 1997 and included a simulated chemical attack near the World Trade Center. Another exercise, which tested the response to a biological attack, was held in June 1999 at the city’s new emergency command center in World Trade Center Building 7.

A major exercise called CitySafe, based around the scenario of a bioterrorist attack involving anthrax, was set to take place in September 1999–possibly on September 11–but was canceled due to an outbreak of West Nile virus in the city. In the summer of 2000, top city officials attended an exercise based around the scenario of a biological warfare agent being released at a sporting event and came up with a plan for shutting down Manhattan during a crisis.

In August 2001, members of the US Marine Corps’ Chemical Biological Incident Response Force participated in an exercise with members of the New York City Fire Department, during which the Fire Department’s response to the 1993 WTC bombing was discussed. And one week before 9/11, preparations were underway for an exercise that would develop plans for restoring operations in New York’s Financial District, where the WTC was located, after a terrorist attack.

Two exercises were held just three days before 9/11 at New York’s La Guardia Airport. One of these involved the Greater New York chapter of the American Red Cross training to deal with a terrorist attack with a biological weapon. The other, called Operation Low Key, was held by the New York City Fire Department Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and was based around the scenario of a jet aircraft carrying about 150 passengers crashing at the end of the runway.

Also on September 8, 2001, an exercise was held at Inova Fairfax Hospital, just outside Washington, DC, based around the scenario of a terrorist attack with a chemical weapon.

New York Fire Chief Thought a Major Attack Was Imminent

A couple of timeline entries describe the concerns of Chief Ray Downey of the New York City Fire Department, before 9/11, about a major terrorist attack taking place in the United States. At a conference in April 1997, Downey warned that an attack was “going to happen.” And in the summer of 2001, he was reportedly certain that a major attack was imminent, which he thought would likely involve a chemical or dirty bomb going off in an urban environment.

The FBI was also concerned about terrorism. In July 2001, representatives of the bureau went to a meeting held by the New York Police Department and said a serious attack was likely to occur, which they thought would take place overseas. Around the same time, Mayor Rudy Giuliani updated a directive that was intended to eliminate conflict between agencies when they responded to emergencies, such as terrorist attacks, in New York.

Meanwhile, at a conference in San Francisco, California, which examined airport security, terrorism and hijackings were two of the main topics of discussion.

Fighters Were Controlled by an Agency That Should Not Have Communicated with Them

A number of entries describe events from the day of September 11, 2001.

Shortly after they took off, three fighter jets launched from Langley Air Force Base came under the control of a Navy air traffic control agency known as “Giant Killer,” even though controllers at Giant Killer have stated that the facility should not have been communicating with the fighters. Meanwhile, the fighters launched from Otis Air National Guard Base in response to the first hijacking that day were still 15 miles from the WTC when the first tower collapsed.

After their command center in WTC 7 was evacuated, personnel from the mayor’s Office of Emergency Management used the office’s special, well-equipped bus as their command post. After the first tower came down, a group of police officers tried to get into WTC 7 in order to get out of the WTC plaza, but they found the door was locked and the building was on fire.

Two entries deal with a man of Middle Eastern appearance who was found acting suspiciously in the WTC. Police officers encountered the man in the North Tower as it was being evacuated and, after he behaved in a threatening manner, arrested him. The detective who carried out the arrest passed the man on to the FBI but was told to keep quiet about what had happened by an unidentified individual who appeared to be a government agent.

Another man was questioned by the police after being noticed behaving suspiciously near the Capitol building in Washington and was found to belong to an Islamic organization with links to terrorism. And alarm was raised when a panel truck was noticed that had a drawing of a plane crashing into the WTC on its side.

Recovery Workers Searched for the Planes’ Black Boxes at Ground Zero

A few entries describe events that occurred after 9/11.

A couple of entries deal with the search for the black boxes from the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers. In the first 10 days after 9/11, recovery workers searched in locations where the Federal Aviation Administration said it had detected a signal from one of the black boxes. And a month after 9/11, workers found an object that appeared to be one of the black boxes, but FBI agents who inspected it denied that it was a black box.

A couple of months later, recovery workers unearthed an armored truck in the rubble of the WTC and discovered that over a million dollars’ worth of diamonds and bonds were inexplicably missing from it.

Lew Rockwell talks to Donald Jeffries about the crimes of the secret government, from JFK to Obama. Podcast.

September 23, 2016

Better Tag Cloud