Advertisement
Many media commentators have mentioned that the COVID-19 crisis of 2020 is similar to other national crises that have led the United States into war.
Three other examples include 1] Germany’s sinking of the Lusitania on 5/7/15 (that led to the entry of the US into WWI), 2] the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41 (that led to the US entry into WWII) and the self-inflicted, controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01 (that led to the G. W. Bush/Dick Cheney administration’s push to invade the Middle East in what many call Operation Iraqi Liberation (“OIL”).
For me, the most pertinent similarity between these events can be stated in the simple truism mentioned in the title above: “The first Casualty of War is Truth.”
Each of the above four events is clouded by documentable facts that prove (or at least strongly suggest) that there are a number of alternative explanations for the crisis-inducing events other than those that have been propagandized to the public (and then published in the literature). Trusted journalists and authors have been coerced (or bribed) into reporting the lies and myths that have been presented as truth.
Perhaps the most egregious example is what really happened on 9/11/01. There are scores of books and videos on the subject, most of which have been gradually censored out of our consciousness and the video and print evidence deleted from YouTube and Google. Investigative journalists have been black-listed and never invited to be interviewed by any mainstream journalists or mainstream talk show host, including, I am sad to have to report, by every talking head you can think of on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc but also most PBS and NPR talking heads that have lost their credibility, including Christiane Amanpour, Judy Woodruff and their associates on BBC and other news outlets from around the world.
It is easy to recognize the guilty ones, because whenever they are referring to the events surrounding 9/11, they use the deceptive phrase “the attacks of 9/11” rather than the more accurate “the controlled demolitions of 9/11”. When that phrase is used, you can be certain that that “journalist” is hiding the actual unwelcome truth (AKA, “lying”) that those three buildings – only two of which were hit by planes (that were never found in the debris) DID NOT come down from fires as the Military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Congressional/bureaucratic institutional-sanctioned propaganda claimed over and over again.
Rather the three skyscrapers have now been conclusively proven to have been demolished with pre-planted explosive devices, which therefore makes impossible the false assertions that the brief fires from jet fuel caused the three non-flammable steel-reinforced skyscrapers to burn down.
So I was intrigued to discover recently that Canadian journalist Ian Harvey – writing for Canada’s Daily Commercial News - wrote a totally truthful article that re-introduced the unwelcome fact that controlled demolitions of World Trade Center Building # 7 (as well as #1 and #2) wasn’t brought down by fires. It is interesting to speculate why no American journalist dares to write similar articles for the MSM.
It is easy to find hundreds of stories about the multitude of honest historians, whistle-blowers and independent investigative journalists (that still have a conscience) who have written about the events of 9/11 and then found themselves mercilessly attacked by paid “trolls” or otherwise subjected to ridicule and adolescent name-calling - like being called a “Tree-hugger”, an “Anti-war Peacenik”, a “9/11 Truther” or an “Anti-vaxxer”.
And now the same conditions are occurring to conscientious, independent scientists, virologists, physicians and true investigative journalists who cannot, in good conscience, totally accept the propaganda coming from profiteering corporations like Big Pharma, and Big Vaccine, and Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum and the Rockefeller-associated Johns Hopkins Hospital-approved narratives about COVID-19.
The article below is a good example of why you also can’t trust un-elected government bureaucracies like the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) regarding the Truth of 9/11 anymore than you can trust the bureaucratic NIH (National Institutes of Health), the CDC, the NIAID (National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease), SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), POTUS (President of the United State), the US Congress, the MSM (Mainstream Media), state-level Departments of Health, etc, etc, concerning the truth about what the 1992 Supreme Court labeled “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” §300aa–22(b)(1).
To access more information on the above information, go to: https://freepress.org/article/solving-911-pre-planned-controlled-demolitions-three-world-trade-center-towers-foreknowledge, and
https://freepress.org/article/think-tank-named-pnac-project-new-american-century
Here is Canadian journalist Ian Harvey’s expose about America’ most notorious crimes against humanity.
______________________________________________________________________________
World Trade Center 7 Building Did Not Collapse Due to Fire
Ian Harvey – Reporting for Canada’s Daily Commercial News - May 20, 2020 (1013 words)
WTC Owner Larry Silverstein’s admission that he ordered the demolition of WTC 7
A group of engineers and architects is demanding the American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) retract and correct a 2008 report that concluded one of three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel supporting it in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) has formally filed a Request for Correction with the NIST following a new and detailed four-year analysis by a team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
It says the World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 collapse was a “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” and dismissed the NIST finding that heat from the fire caused beams to “walk off” their moorings.
Sept. 11, 2001 is the tragedy of when two hijacked planes hit the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers sending debris tumbling onto WTC 7. The NIST claimed that embers ignited a fire which then caused the 47-storey building to collapse on itself at 5:20 p.m., hours after the initial incident that morning.
“We have filed a request for correction because the NIST report is wrong,” says Ted Walter, spokesperson for AE911Truth, which is a group of 3,000 engineers, scientists and architects, including more than a dozen Canadians ones, that paid US$316,000 for the study.
“From an engineering perspective it is imperative to understand how and why this building came down under design load conditions,” said Walter.
The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support.
Further, the group, which includes families of those killed, asserts that the investigation is flawed and that the conclusions as to what happened must be based on “science and engineering” and accept that controlled demolition is a plausible cause.
For expediency and because it was not hit by a plane, the study looked only at WTC 7 not the other two but AE911T has long claimed all three were subject to something beyond heat induced failure.
“The report notes that the outside frame was more flexible than the inside framing which is where the elevator shafts were,” says McMaster University professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol, a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering who is also one of two peers who reviewed the UAF study.
“Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.”
Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building.
The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning.
The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911Truth that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure.
“We don’t even know if the steel was fireproofed,” says Korol.
The group makes no assertion as to why it may have been a “controlled demolition” and says its only interest is in ensuring that there’s no need to rethink the structural steel design of highrises because the design was not at fault.
UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey, principal investigator, his research assistants, Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, found that the design standard of the building was not exceeded by the fire and that simultaneous and controlled demolition caused the structural steel to fail.
“Fires could not have caused weakening of displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building,” the report states. “Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse.”
The NIST report held that lateral support beams buckled because of thermal expansion from the fire and because they had “nowhere to go” and thus deformed and weakened the structural integrity. Other failures were triggered when joists and beams “walked off” their connections, NIST found.
It was also the first NIST finding of a high-rise collapse from thermal deformation caused by fire which the 125-page Alaska report disputes.
It presents arguments showing it was a simultaneous global failure not a localized failure causing a domino effect.
Hulsey et al argue that the collapse was straight down in a pancake fashion with about 2.25 to 2.5 seconds for free fall acceleration.
“In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states.
The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure.
Their conclusion is that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building and were not subjected to heat above floor 30 because there were no fires there.
Even if they did, they would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures and the team was unable to find any other plausible cause for the progressive sequence of failures.
Recent Comments (86 comments)
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
John H - May 20, 2020
This occurred the day after Rumsfeld stated that there was 2.3 Trillion dollars missing from Pentagon. 9-11 happened and the budget spigot went wide open. It appears that Bush, Big Oil, and the military industrial complex wanted a war for the $.
Sandra J - May 20, 2020
Thank you for sharing these critical findings with the public in such a factual way. The science cannot be argued with, as anyone with basic knowledge of high school physics knows that high-rises do not collapse at free fall speed against the path of greatest resistance. The hard part is assessing the who, where, how and why behind the events of that day. The truth must be more freeing than the lie we were sold.
Jonathan C - May 20, 2020
Moreover, Building 7 experienced freefall acceleration for about 2.25 seconds (roughly 8 floors) meaning that no energy was available to crush any floors below during that timeframe. No one has ever been able to demonstrate the downward motions observed for Building 7 (or the twin towers) using a real-world experiment, by fire and gravity alone. It’s impossible.
Roland Angle - May 20, 2020
Thanks to your publication and author Ian Harvey for covering this important topic. It is of paramount importance that we in the building industry understand what really caused the failure of those three buildings on that fateful day.
There is one error in the information that I would like to point out, though.
The article, quoting Professor Robert Korol, states, “Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.” Whether this is an error by Professor Korol or the author doesn’t matter, but the statement has it backwards. NIST arbitrarily held the outside frame of the building on the east side to be rigid. This had the effect of forcing all the thermal movement of the beams to move to the west, maximizing the displacement of the girder (pushed by the beams) relative to its seat at column 79. The UAF study, on the other hand, found that the east wall of the building moved almost 6 inches to the east under the thermal effects of the fire, and as a result the girder had only about an inch of movement relative to the column, contradicting the NIST collapse initiation event claim.
We welcome and encourage an open and honest dialogue regarding this event, in the name of upholding the integrity of our profession.
Roland Angle, P.E. Member, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Board of Directors
Randy H - May 20, 2020
Statements made in this article are consistent with video evidence of the collapse of WTC 7. Video showed that the building was undoubtably taken down by a flawless controlled demolition.
Daniel - May 20, 2020
The fact that this is the only news story on this shows just how bought and paid for the entire field of mainstream news is. Anyone watching a video of building 7 falling, at free fall speed for a large chunk of it, mind you… can see that it was a controlled demolition. Small office fires don’t cause what we saw that day. It’s ludicrous.
David F -May 20, 2020
This 2014 letter to NIST provides some details of the technical objections to the NIST investigation and report. http://www.journalof911studies.com/the-nist-report-on-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-challenged-by-2100-architects-and-engineers/
Graham M - 20, 2020
I heard that WTC7 was the control centre for all the buildings to come down, and this is why it was destroyed last of all. If you look at Grenfell Tower in London from a few years ago now, that was like The Towering Inferno, and it is still standing which makes a complete mockery of the NIST report.
David F - May 20, 2020
This video shows some of the questioning directed to the NIST investigators and their responses following their release of their draft Final Report in August 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY
Scott B - May 20, 2020
This article was enabled by the diligent work of the AE911T and UAF teams. Many thanks to DCN for publishing this article. We can only hope that despite the American media, and the sheepish reluctance of so many American engineers to speak up, someday the entirety of the truth behind the events of 9/11 will surface.
Gary W - May 20, 2020
Thank you to Daily Commercial News for having the integrity to print an unbiased assessment of the work of A&E for 9/11 Truth. I only wish American MSM has such integrity.
Brent B - May 20, 2020
I would like to point out the evidence for controlled demolition of all three towers is extensive, including another academic paper on the twin towers collapse published last year that falsified NIST’s explanation. After this study, that other evidence must be viewed in a new light. And, it’s time to start asking uncomfortable questions about who was behind it all and why has the US government been lying to us for 20 years.
James R - May 20, 2020
The entire interior of the steel structure was covered with asbestos. The steel was E81 and the structure support was from a mesh from the combination of structural steel from the elevator shafts, floor trusses to the steel enforced concrete on the outer structure which all went up in a pyroclastic flow of pulverized concrete, everything inside the structure and nothing was found bigger that a soccer ball that would be found in a collapse and the power was such that ejecting several hundred thousand tons of large portions of the structure was over several hundred feet. Deutsche Bank’s top of their building had the remains of bones that were closer to splinters and small bone segments.
Additional comments continued at: https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report