Got 30 seconds? Watch the video which explains EVERYTHING

Trust in institutionalized science and legacy media should be dropping like an old hotel in Vegas (or a skyscraper in Manhattan on 9/11)

If you’ve never seen the footage of the Salomon Bros. building in Manhattan falling to the ground like a house of cards, please tell me what you think of the video above.

Building 7: A Pillar of the 9/11 Truth movement

Readers familiar with the demise of World Trade Center 7 (Building 7) at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001 know that:

• It was a big building. 47 stories tall and 400 feet across.

• It fell into its own footprint at nearly the rate of gravity.

• It was not hit by a plane.

• Most Americans are unaware that this building was destroyed on 9/11. This is because it was barely mentioned in media coverage.

• It was the first (and last) steel-framed building to have ever fallen from office fires alone.

So how do we know the building fell from fires? The official technical explanation given by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a division of the USG’s Department of Commerce) told us in an 87 page document: NCSTAR 1A: The Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7.

NIST first tells us what didn’t bring the building down:

• It wasn’t explosives (they claim there were no blast sounds in any audio recording of the footage prior to the collapse).

• It wasn’t from the fuel in the back-up diesel generators in the building.

• It was not from the structural damage sustained earlier that day.

Briefly, NIST’s explanation is that fires on floors 7-13 led to sagging and weakening from thermal expansion and failure of floor connections leading to the loss of lateral support and buckling of a critical column, column 79. This led to the failure of surrounding columns and eventually to the collapse of the entire building.

In science, this is called a hypothesis, or a possible explanation that requires supporting evidence before it can graduate to what is called a theory.

The problem here is that there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. There were no cameras inside the building recording what happened to column 79 on floor 13. Most of the material evidence that should have been available wasn’t because of the clean up of ground zero at breakneck pace. Even documentation “specific to the WTC 7 building was lost with the destruction of the WTC site.”

So, NIST had to rely on a computer simulation of the building using their postulated parameters and observing the model. NIST used modeling software called LS-DYNA, an advanced general-purpose multiphysics simulation software package developed by the former Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC). Here’s what NIST’s model did:

There are two obvious problems. First, we are not shown what happens throughout the entire collapse sequence. Why? Second, what is shown doesn’t look like what happened to the building.

One would expect that the National Institute for Standards and Technology would have revised their model or chosen a different hypothesis to begin with. Or at least explain why their model didn’t behave like the actual building that day.

But they didn’t. They assert that they didn’t have to. NIST somehow concludes (Section 3.5.3 Accuracy Appraisal):

“Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well”

What do they mean? They mean that given how many variables and estimates were needed to create their simulation, perfectly matched behavior is not required to validate the model (and their hypothesis). “Reasonably well” is an arbitrary designation which they believe they are free to choose without defining. To NIST, “reasonably well” means that their model appears like it will fall in the manner which it did.

But it didn’t.

More than a decade later, NIST’s model was reproduced by Professor Leroy Hulsey and his team at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Hulsey shows us how NIST’s own model behaved after the first few frames:

In simplest terms, the modeled building falls over, not straight down. Hulsey’s opinion was that their model did NOT match the observed behavior reasonably well. So he went one step further. He asked a simple question, one that NIST never did: How can the model be adjusted so that it does match observed behavior reasonably well? Is it even possible?

It was. His team began by searching for the minimum number of column failures that would result in what was observed. After his adjustments, the model now behaved like this:

Once again in simplest terms, that’s what the building did. So what was the minimum number of column failures required? To make the model match the behavior of building 7, Hulsey had to make ALL the columns fail nearly simultaneously. That was the only solution.

Fires cannot do that. Only strategically placed explosives detonated near synchronously can. That’s why buildings that are demolished in this fashion drop into their own footprint and do not fall to one side or another—like NIST’s model did.

If the investigation were rigorous or even remotely scientific, NIST would have concluded that a controlled demolition was the best and ONLY explanation of what happened to Building 7. But as mentioned earlier, NIST is a part of the US Government, an entity not nearly interested in science as it is in managing the way people think—about the government.

If explosives were in the building, how could they have gotten there? Who set it up? It would have taken months to rig a building of that size. Who let the terrorists in everyday? Why didn’t the FBI know that Al Qaeda was not only training crack pilots who were able to fly complicated flight patterns on suicide missions the very first time they sat in cockpits of multiengine jet planes, they also had operatives who were demolition experts who happened to have complete access to a building that housed offices of the SEC, IRS, the United States Secret Service, the DoD and CIA?

If explosives were in the building, it must have been an inside job. The fact that at the very least some of the folks on the inside (literally) were elements of our government that operate outside of oversight is a matter of some embarrassment to the investigative authority itself. It’s a textbook example of conflict of interest.

That’s the problem with real science, it often leads to embarrassing questions for the government to answer.

Something New to Me

What is offered above is one of the main reasons why there is a strong and growing 9/11 truth movement.

Ted Walter, the Executive Director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice reminded me of another aspect of the peculiar story around WTC 7 I had never pondered.

Someone in the FDNY, or higher up, let everyone know that the collapse of Building 7 was imminent on the afternoon of 9/11. There were multiple media reports stating just that. CNN kept their audience appraised of the situation all afternoon:

Walter offers an excellent summary (embedded below) which includes media clips and commentary from FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden and Shyam Sundar, PhD, NIST’s lead investigator of the WTC7 collapse:

Deputy Chief Hayden explains that one of the engineers consulted predicted the collapse of the building five hours earlier.

Hayden says, “… it turned out he was right on the money.”

Given the fact that the complete failure of a steel framed building from fire was unprecedented and that NIST themselves assure us that the damage to the building prior to collapse was not significant, how could anyone know the building was going to fall?

Who was this genius engineer, and why didn’t NIST ask him/her what they knew?

I simply cannot accept that a team of earnest investigators at NIST working for seven years would not think to ask those in charge on the ground on that day how and why they were so sure Building 7 would fall that afternoon. Neither is there any mention of the widely reported foreknowledge of the event in their entire report.

The University of Alaska, Fairbanks’ study proved that NIST’s own model leads directly to a controlled demolition.

There is only one reasonable story that explains everything:

NIST was directed to not ask. Whoever knew the building would fail catastrophically was not only aware of the explosive charges hidden inside the building for months prior, they detonated them.

NIST’s orders were not to explain what happened to Building 7. Their orders were to come up with an explanation that didn’t involve explosives and publish it, and the media would sell it to the public as a comprehensive, scientific investigation that would not be questioned. If people did, their concerns would never be legitimized by our trusted media sources, the appointed arbiter of the facts for most people.

In any case, by the time our officials would have had to answer any questions, the damage would have been already done. The wars would have been waged and the trillions would have been spent. Whoever knew WTC7 was going to “collapse” was right on the money indeed.

To those of you skeptical of our appointed scientific authorities who insisted that SARS-COV2 could not have come from a lab, does any of this sound familiar?

This is how the world works. At least, that is the way I see it.

Once you can wrap your head around the implications of what was done, how it was done and who could have done this, you will have a better understanding of EVERYTHING.

I often ask people what it would take for them to change their mind about what they think happened on 9/11. I regularly ask the same question of myself. At this point, I cannot imagine what could change my mind.

I am, however, open to hearing another opinion. If you remain skeptical of the 9/11 Truth movement, please leave a comment which explains how you would reconcile all of this.

The Covid Origins Debate

There are some obvious similarities between the building 7 story and the origin of the SARS-COV2 virus. Scientific evidence points away from the story the public was asked to swallow about these events, and those in charge didn’t do their job.

The House Select Subcommittee is slowly picking away at what was once a seemingly impenetrable fortress surrounding the doctor who claimed to embody science itself, Anthony Fauci.

Peter Daszak, director of EcoHealth Alliance, the organization which received millions of dollars in grant money from the NIH to do what can reasonably be called gain of function research on coronaviruses was found guilty of obstructing the subcommittee’s investigation.

Dr. David Morens, Fauci’s senior advisor and human shield against any direct attack which could reveal an effort to conceal the former NIAID director’s possible role in suppressing evidence of a lab-leak sat in Daszak’s chair last week and faithfully carried out his role.

His frank and sometimes indignant responses should let us know that he is trying to draw fire to himself in order to save his former boss, the reputation of our agencies of public health and trust in the media platforms who acted in lockstep for four years to beatify their saint of medical science.

The subcommittee is only scratching the surface. Fauci’s unsubstantiated, public statements were used to mask children, close schools, prevent physicians from treating Covid-19 and scare the public into accepting an experimental medical intervention with a dwindling benefit and unknown harm. None of this is directly relevant to the possible coverup of a lab leak.

With regard to the proximal origin of the virus, Anthony Fauci can always maintain that he was acting on his and his advisors’ best judgement given the available data and apologize for not being completely transparent at the time. How can anyone in particular be blamed for a virus which escaped a lab?

This is the difference between the Covid origins and the 9/11 debate. With Covid, our authorities will always have plausible deniability with regard to any malevolent intentions.

But explosives were in the three skyscrapers in Manhattan. They had been placed by experts over months. The experts were permitted to enter the buildings by the security services hired by the lease owners. Despite all the observed behavior consistent with a controlled demolition, including official testimony of hundreds of first responders who witnessed explosions, investigators did not look for evidence of explosives.

NIST did not do an investigation. They ran an elaborate, publicly funded cover-up which took seven years to unfold. Who would our authorities be so interested in protecting besides themselves? Who is really behind all of this?

Unlike the lab origins debate, there is no plausible deniability around 9/11. That is why an investigation around Covid is permitted while 23 years later the most likely parties in the 9/11 cover up remain outside of courtrooms and subcommittee hearings.

There will have to be a big shift in our understanding of how the world works before those responsible for the events on 9/11 ever take the stand.