New University of Alaska Study Disproves Official Fire Collapse Story

https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

WTC 7-- 23 Angles

Donald Rumsfeld's Lies and the Demolition of WTC7

Good article by Kevin Ryan:

When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career.

Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation.

Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates. The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.

Several of Rumsfeld and Cheney’s colleagues had access to, or personal knowledge of, WTC 7. Secret Service agent Carl Truscott, who was in charge of the Presidential Protection Division on 9/11, knew the building well because he had worked at the Secret Service’s New York field office located there. Furthermore, Tenet’s CIA secretly operated a “false front of another federal organization” from within WTC 7. That false front might have been related to the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense, or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), all of which were listed as tenants of WTC 7.

The SEC lost many important documents when the building was destroyed, including much of what was needed to effectively prosecute Enron and WorldCom. In any event, it is clear that covert operatives had access to WTC 7. Through the Secret Service, the DOD, and a secret office of the CIA, the building provided access to many such people. Additionally, electronic security for the WTC complex was contracted out to Stratesec, a security company operated by military arms logistician and Iran-Contra suspect, Barry McDaniel. Wirt Walker, the son of a CIA employee who was flagged by the SEC for suspected 9/11 insider trading, was McDaniel’s boss at Stratesec.

Amazingly, explosives and terrorism were planned topics of discussion at WTC 7 on the day of the attacks. There was a meeting scheduled at WTC 7 for the morning of 9/11 that included explosive disposal units from the U.S. military. The Demolition Ordnance Disposal Team from the Army’s Fort Monmouth just happened to be invited there that morning to meet with the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein. They were “reportedly planning to hold a meeting at 7 World Trade Center to discuss terrorism prevention efforts.” The meeting was set for eight o’clock in the morning on 9/11 but was canceled with the excuse that one of Silverstein’s executives could not make it.

Richard Spanard, an Army captain and commander of Fort Monmouth’s explosive disposal unit, was at WTC 7 to attend the meeting. He was “enjoying breakfast at a deli 50 feet from the World Trade Center twin towers when the first plane hit. General hysteria inundated the deli. Spanard decided that he and the three soldiers with him should move to number 7 World Trade Center, where they had a scheduled meeting.” Building 7 was “full of people in the midst of evacuating. A second explosion was heard, and people began mobbing the three escalators in a state of panic. Spanard and the now five soldiers with him began yelling for everyone to remain calm.”

In yet another “eerie quirk of fate,” Fort Monmouth personnel were preparing for an exercise called Timely Alert II on the day of 9/11. This was a disaster drill focused on response to a terrorist attack and included law enforcement agencies and emergency personnel. The drill simply changed to an actual response as the attacks began.

Fort Monmouth, located in New Jersey just 49 miles away from the WTC complex, was home to several units of the Army Materiel Command (AMC). Coincidentally, Stratesec’s Barry McDaniel had led AMC a decade earlier. McDaniel had an interesting past and, after 9/11, became business partners with one of Dick Cheney’s closest colleagues. The Fort Monmouth response on 9/11 included the explosives unit and the Army’s Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM). As the drill was converted to an actual response, teams of CECOM experts were deployed to locate cell phone transmissions in the pile at Ground Zero.

The remainder of the base’s explosive ordnance company was there by the afternoon of 9/11 and stayed for three days in order to, among other things, help “authorities” look for any possible explosives in the debris. The explosive disposal/terrorism meeting was not just a request of Larry Silverstein, however, but was actually organized by the Secret Service field office. The U.S. Navy’s explosive ordnance disposal Mobile Unit 6 had also been invited to WTC 7 that morning, again at the request of the Secret Service. As they arrived, the planes began to strike the towers.

Considering all of this, Rumsfeld’s claim that he had never heard of WTC 7 is not believable. It does not reconcile with the facts about the positions he held and those of his colleagues and subordinates. It certainly doesn’t reconcile with the fact that Rudy Giuliani gave Rumsfeld a personal tour of Ground Zero just two months after the attacks. Surely Rumsfeld noticed the huge pile of still-smoking rubble that was once the building where Giuliani’s 23rd-floor emergency bunker was housed. They were photographed standing right across the street from it.

Rumsfeld was the chairman of the advisory board for a company that occupied nearly the entirety of WTC 7. On 9/11 he led the DOD—another tenant of the building. Explosive disposal units from both the Army and the Navy (DOD entities) were scheduled to meet in WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11, ostensibly to discuss terrorism. A DOD-sponsored terrorism exercise was scheduled for that morning in the same area.

Moreover, Rumsfeld’s long-time business associate Peter Janson ran AMEC Construction, a company hired to clean-up the debris at the WTC complex (after having renovated the exact area where Flight 77 was said to have hit the Pentagon). And as stated above, Rumsfeld had been a paid consultant to CIA director George Tenet in the three years prior to 9/11. Immediately after WTC 7 was destroyed, the CIA ordered the immediate area around the building to be surrounded by FBI agents. According to the New York Times, the CIA then “dispatched a special team to scour the rubble.”

Reportedly this was to retrieve secret documents. But was the CIA, in conjunction with (or posing as) the Secret Service, also coordinating the military’s ordnance disposal units in their search for explosives in the debris? Rumsfeld’s comments should be considered in light of the fact that he was among the leaders of a concerted plan to lie about Iraq’s WMDs. Similarly, there has been a pattern of lying about WTC 7 by government officials.

The official report on the destruction of the building is patently and provably false and followed a long string of false explanations. When government scientists finally admitted that WTC 7 was in free-fall, indicating that they had previously lied about that fact, even their body language revealed the deception.

When we remember 9/11, we should remember that those crimes initiated and continue to drive the devastating “War on Terror.” We should also remember that war is based on deception and the official account of 9/11 is a prime example. We see the lies about 9/11 everyday as they are still being told, like the one readily seen in the form of a 47-story building experiencing free fall and nearly every statement made about it by government officials since that time.

"WTC nuclear demolition man with construction helmet in WTC-7 lobby"

This is really freaking weird:







Secret Service -- OST = Office of Secure Transport



Since the recent release of the NIST FOIA, this short clip reveals a person of questionable presence. Who is he? Secret Service Special Agent
 Bennette who is acting as a liaison of sorts for the Tower 7 lobby
after Tower 2 has come down, but when asked his title, he states O.S.T.

Quick search of OST, (Office of Secure Transportation) reveals an arm of
 the Department of Energy responsible for the transportation and
security of nuclear and, or "related" materials...

For further reference see their site:

https://fmt.kcp.com/OSTfederalagent/

Not some group that changes light bulbs in Federal Buildings...

Very Damning Video on Official WTC7 Lies

Blatant lies about lies about the use of "shear studs" in WTC7. Note the 33, in the official collapse story-- and a key part of the story rests on the W33 girder (naturally):

WTC7 Went Down Faster or As Fast As a Known Controlled Demolition

from George Washington.

"A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse"

by Michael Fullerton

February 14, 2011

This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 disaster. In these 10 years, not only have extremely important scientific questions about this tragedy gone unanswered, but they have even been ridiculed to the point of deranged absurdity. We owe a valid scientific explanation to the 3000 victims on that day, the steadily dying health-stricken first responders, the dead and wounded soldiers, and the untold thousands upon thousands of dead and injured Afghans and Iraqis resulting from the terrifying never-ending “war on terror”. Critics of those skeptical of the official story of 9/11 have often objected that an alternative theory has never been put forth. To that end, this article will put forth a scientific theory for one important aspect of the 9/11 event, the Building 7 collapse.

(Photo: http://911research.wtc7.net)

On September 11, 2001 a third building came down. This building was 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7), a 47-story building about the width and length of a football field. NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell. Their theory is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7[1]. Many people are under the mistaken impression that NIST’s theory of how WTC 7 fell down is a valid scientific theory. In science however, a valid theory must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the available empirical data.[2] This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observations.

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results. Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

The best alternative to NIST’s WTC 7 theory is the controlled demolition theory. This theory states that additional sources of energy other than fire and gravity were used to bring down WTC 7. The strongest theories contend that these alternate energy sources included explosives and incendiaries. It is common knowledge that shaped charges can cut through steel support columns.[5] If all remaining support columns of WTC 7 were rigged with shaped charges on both sides, on each story for eight stories and were set off in the correct precisely timed manner, they could remove all remaining resisting support for WTC 7 allowing it to free-fall for 2.25 seconds. So unlike the official story, the controlled demolition theory does explain all the observables: the rapid onset of collapse, the largely symmetrical collapse into the building’s footprint, the roof line kink causing the building to fall in on itself, minimizing damage to other buildings, the intricate roll to the south at the end of the collapse away from valuable real estate, and the free-fall period.

There definitely are problems with the controlled demolition explosives theories. For instance, although there is some evidence of explosive sounds,[6] in the available audio/visual evidence of the WTC 7 collapse, you don’t see the flashes and the loud booms typically seen with explosive controlled demolitions. But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.[8] These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts. Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.[9]

So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives. This conclusion shows without a doubt that a thorough independent scientific investigation into the 9/11 event must be undertaken. Until now, this has not been done. I strongly urge all scientists and scientifically-oriented individuals to support Scientists For 9/11 Truth (http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/) in calling for an real unbiased scientific investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.

Notes

[1] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

[2] Merriam-Webster.com Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Theory in Science

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam%27s%20razor

[3] NIST admits freefall of WTC 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

[4] http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

[5] Shaped Charge Explosion Compared to Explosion at WTC http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30834556

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

[7] Y. Kasai. The International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. Demolition and reuse of concrete and masonry http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q3wOAAAAQAAJ

[8] 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[9] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,”
The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Volume 2, 2009, pp. 7-31. Available from: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM