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

238 Responses to A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse

LaBTop

February 27, 2011 at 4:49 pm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1

Pay especially sharp attention to the two seismic diagrams in my opening post.
And the fact that seismic signals needed 17 seconds to arrive from New York at the seismic station at Palisades, New York State.

Then you see a huge energy event, 3 seconds before we even saw any movement at the visible exterior of WTC 7 (like the dent, forming in the eastern penthouse roof), and that event was magnitudes greater than the whole seismic energy event that followed, the visible global total collapse of WTC 7.

You wanted evidence of human intervention? We call that an explosion.
- Jeffrey Orling RA
  
  February 27, 2011 at 5:05 pm
  
  I am not sure that explosions produce seismic shocks. They certainly can but not every explosion will produce one.
  
  I am waiting for information from Lamont Doherty about the threshold sensitivity of their equipment.
Brian

February 27, 2011 at 9:22 pm

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson

http://buildingwhat.org
http://www.l911t.com
http://ae911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://rl911truth.org
http://firefightersfor911truth.org
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23969.htm
Brian

February 27, 2011 at 10:01 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/
Brian

February 27, 2011 at 10:15 pm

Did he say “pull it” ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4406049214568362566#

. . .

Did he say “pull it” ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&playnext=1&list=PL8FA177BD5899D57B
Brian

February 27, 2011 at 10:20 pm

Did he say he heard explosions inside WTC 7 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=player_embedded#at=50
LaBTop

February 28, 2011 at 12:09 am

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg5#pid9595093
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg5#pid9595267

I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ – Supplement (December 14, 2007) :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread321170/pg1

You can find all diagrams and photos and screen shots from videos in my
LaBTop’s “Seismic evidence 9/11″ folder :
http://media.abovetopsecret.com/profile_gallery/LaBTop/&action=list_photos&album_id=5899

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg7#pid9597385
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg7#pid9600041

My seismic WTC 7 anomaly posts, long ones mostly, oldest first :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg8#pid9602587

An important seismic post, with a lot of seismograms, and the Cianca photo of the first dent in the WTC 7 penthouse roof, time-stamped by NIST with an atomic clock coupling :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg9#pid9606926

Barry Jennings last video interview, where he explicitly explained that the explosion which blew him and Mr Hess up one stair in WTC 7, happened at a moment when both South and North towers were still standing :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg12#pid9959734
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg12#pid9960799

There are also a few very interesting technically correct videos included, which give the reader a much better grasp on the whole WTC 7 collapse scenario.

I can not comment much at the moment, because at the moment I am quite busy at the Pilots for 911Truth forum, to give my opinion on the real flight path of the Pentagon attack plane :

The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact :

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21099&st=0

Any logical person will get interested by my arguments there, I hope.

Jeffrey Orling RA, you seem such a logical person, just as a few others here, so let’s see if you can come up with some solid argumentation regarding the seismic evidence I have brought to the “court” of everyday global citizens.

Btw, Dr. KIM from LDEO has already answered, that explosions can and will produce seismic shocks, in the week after 9/11. He referred to quarry explosions near NY which were his main source in the many years before 9/11 to calculate the Raleigh waves speed through the upper crust of NY State before they reached the needle of his seismographs at LDEO. Links are all in those new links above.

There was already many years another seismic station on Manhattan Island, but that one was closed shortly before 9/11. That one should have given us perfect evidence what really happened at the Towers.

The official LDEO site has all 5 seismograms of the 9/11 events still on their site, with their sensitivity scale in nm/s, imprinted on them. Some are expressed in 10 nm/s, and some in 100 nm/s.
The filters they used are also imprinted, in Hz.

Btw, why do you ask for the sensitivity threshold, when the whole event can be perfectly seen expressed in that LDEO diagram I used, and where I imprinted all my remarks on?

On a side note, my original thesis was written at a now defunct website, Studyof911Truth. I still have to repost it somewhere, for further reference, since all these links I gave you all here, do link a lot to that original thesis.

I got a bit tired of losing all those important information tidbits collected in all these years now, at these now disappeared forums, websites and other sources, as if a cleaner firm is walking behind you to erase as much 9/11 evidence as they can.
- Brian
  
  February 28, 2011 at 2:59 pm
  
  I have followed your work, and greatly admire the quality of your contributions – very important stuff. Just wanted to express my thanks, I know you have invested a lot of time in it. I can tell you that the word is getting through to people – the tide is rising, and the dam is going to break.
  - Sean
    
    February 28, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    
    Appreciate it, I see there is a broadcast coming up on March 06, I believe this year about the negligence behind the Nist/Bush investigation. I see from your posts that that there are a lot of people in belief that this Bush administration falsified evidence and the entire investigation. this has already been proven so once the word gets out it should spread fast and we will get a proper investigation done and prosecute those responsible for writing the NIST report.
- Jeffrey Orling RA
  
  March 5, 2011 at 12:09 am
  
  LaBtop,
  
  I’ve only briefly skimmed your WTC 7 presentation and it looks excellent. I have been working on WTC 1 and 2 and so I am not up to speed on WTC 7 at all.
  
  Getting past the lies is the problem… not to mention the cover up.
  
  I certainly need some help with seismic information and I believe this is crucial data. I believe Graham MacQueen did some work with LD data.
  
  I would urge you to post your work at the 911 Free Forum
  
  http://the911forum.freeforums.org
  
  which already has some interesting advanced work on WTC 7.
  
  Please feel to email me at jsandero at geeeeeeeee mail dot com
Sean

March 1, 2011 at 4:26 am

Jeremy, it took me a while researching the NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 it wasn’t posted on this thread and this is where I learned about mostly all of this…the girder connection you mentioned was just a drawing of the column and secondary plate work, however I looked at what started the failure event on page 457. From there NIST gives a lot of good information on what the column sizes were, the loads, what the connection looked like etc.

As I read along NIST starts to evaluate theoretical situations and just keeps adding to theory without real world situations….for example they said since the shear studs failed between the concrete and beam that the beam failed in lateral torsional buckling this is when a beam twists and thus it’s strength in the top and bottom flange cannot meet it’s max yield and is considered weaker and there are reductions for this…now in theory this is true…however what is causing the beam to torsionally twist is the load of the slab of concrete because it has no bond to the beam anymore and acts as a weight so the top flange in theory can twist… however with the load of the slab on the top of the flange the flange cannot rotate, therefore no reduction should be taken.

Also the studs in the center span of the beam would not have lengthened or sheared because the beam cannot lengthen at the center as much as it does overall, eventually if all studs sheared then what is shearing the last stud because they all work together to shear each other…one or two have to remain and would provide lateral support to the beam anyway
If NIST did what they should have done they would see that their theory has no leg to stand on. When you do these kind of investigations you build yourself real world models of these floors…heat them up in a controlled setting and test your theory….all the way through as I read I am being fed theory that works to their advantage to be able to fail column 79,..only once did I see them mention that shear studs under real world testing broke at 65Ksi but they did not back up how the studs got to 65ksi other than their theory.

Shear studs won’t fail regardless because the concrete expands as well and this has never been a problem in other buildings before so I am sure if they did an actual test and built a real world model, we would see how false this claim really is.

They also are ambiguos to point out what the loads are that they used on the columns, they say they took 25% of the live loads….this is a big number for them…as I have said before live loads are big loads that did not exist and NIST is getting away with using 25% when this should be 0% maybe 1%.., its like there taking whatever they can wherever they can, to get the maximum loading condition possible….when they should be placing real world numbers in place.. there wasn’t any live loads in the building….it was empty, and there was no wind so where do they get off taking 25% of a massive load condition.

Also in their model they put the load on the very top of the column as they put it; when in fact the loads come into the column at different floor elevations, so this part of there model is incorrect.

They also say what the safety factors are based against the design condition, they do not verify what the design condition is…is this real world design for the actual case or the original fictitious design or the one they made up taking 25% of live loads

Shearing the bolts on the connections is way out in left field…this would not happen and I can say that by inspection. The fact NIST does not back anything up through real world testing is criminally negligent on their part for an investigation of this kind of importance.

Secondly they contradict themselves saying the beams would bow from the weight of the concrete……now listen clearly for a real world fact…they said the beam would sag from the weight of the concrete…..when a beam bends the top flange is being crushed because it has a smaller inner radius…the bottom flange is being stretched because it has a bigger outer diameter….the bottom flange needs no lateral support because it is being stretched or lengthened by the weight of the concrete bending it…..the top flange is being compressed and needs lateral support much like a column because now it can buckle because it’s being compressed…..do you see my point……the top flange has the shear studs and they said they sheared because the beam lengthened due to heat…however the beam cannot lengthen on the top flange if it is being bowed because the top flange is being compressed and if the beam is in a bow shape it is already longer than it would be in a straight line…thus how does the beam kick the girder off of it’s seat and how do the shear studs fail when you have thermal expansion causing a tension load in the top flange but a reverse compression load in the top flange from the weight of the slab…at some point the shear studs would become neutral and no shear stud failure can be possible. Thermal expansion shears studs in one direction and bending shears them in the opposite direction…a balance point has to occur. Again this is my theory now I wish somebody would do the job NIST should have already done and prove that what they said can happen can really happen because I bet my theory is better than theirs.

They play this game all through the report but everything seems to favour the collapse of column 79….like you said it’s fraudulent from start to finish….and how more true a statement can that be…..because even if there garbage was right…they don’t back it up by real world test’s which go hand and hand with any investigation where things are questionable or theoretical. And they basically did nothing to that extent.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  March 1, 2011 at 5:57 am
  
  Also in their model they put the load on the very top of the column as they put it; when in fact the loads come into the column at different floor elevations, so this part of there model is incorrect.
  
  In their 16 floor model, they didn’t account for any load redistribution above the 16th floor. 31 floors where loads could possibly have been redistributed through the floor system, just as it was through the Vierendeel action of the exterior frame, that just don’t exist in their model. Yet they include all the MASS from those 31 floors and apply them, like you said, to the TOPS of the columns.
  
  I’ve also considered that they don’t account for bowing when they propose thermal expansion as the culprit. Or the thermal expansion of the slab.
  
  Fraud.
Pingback: MICHAEL FULLERTON: Scientific Theory of The WTC 7 Collapse : Veterans Today
Jeffrey Orling RA

March 4, 2011 at 2:32 pm

I suggest anyone who has some good research become a member of the 911 Free Forum and post your findings over there.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

This is not a JREF or OCT site or debunker of anything except false claims… regardless of who makes them. These are scientists and engineers attempting to analyze what happened using science and observations. They makes mistakes, acknowledge them and retract them and refine their understanding bit by bit.

911FF seems to be doing the best work on 911. Please consider joining and bringing your expertise.

I am very interested in the seismic data.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  March 5, 2011 at 3:34 am
  
  Thanks for the invite.
- Sean
  
  March 5, 2011 at 5:46 pm
  
  I’ll put some of my comments up and see what others think, maybe it’s been thought of already, I am a member now.
  
  Regards,
  - Jeffrey Orling RA
    
    March 6, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    
    Sean,
    
    Welcome aboard. I am sure others who are more knowledgeable than I will comment. I will be interested to see the discussion.
    
    best
    Jeffrey
aussie

March 21, 2011 at 12:33 pm

LaBTop – I notice you focus on Pilots for 911 truth (unfortunately one of the weaker groups in the research community) and seem to spend time checking ‘flight paths at the Pentagon”.

I’m of the school that discussing/speculating about the Pentagon is a classic example of people ‘talking themselves to death’ over something they can never definitively prove.

The Pentagon holds all the cards as to what hit it.

Anything you or I come up with is guesswork – and would be easily ridiculed by the Pentagon if it released one of the many CCTV videos in its possession showing you exactly did go on that day.

Many wise people have recently announced they no longer waste their energy second-guessing the powerful and secretive Pentagon – Richard Gage, Frank Legge, John Bursill, Peter Dale Scott (I believe) have all recently spelled out their conclusions that Pentagon research is a waste of valuable time – a diversion, a dead end, a river running into the sand., a distraction, an area rife with mis- and disinformation.
aussie

March 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm

To add to my note above: Pentagon flight paths has absorbed much energy of well-intentioned people.

The point is, the Pentagon holds all the cards, all the info, all the forensics.

911 discussion actually doesn’t need to expend itself on the Pentagon – there’s enough stuff for productive discussion, with far more information available. NORAD ‘stand down’; the early, ever-changing, self contradictory military statements,; the capacity of 19 rookie pilots to carry out a highly specialised, military, under-the-radar Top Gun operation – dominating US skies for 90 unchallenged minutes; etc, etc.

What’s the stress to ‘prove’ what went on at the Pentagon? We’ll never know – they are a non-transparent , locked-down organisation by definition.
aussie

March 29, 2011 at 12:21 pm

Jeffrey Orling RA. Nice try. But you have been argued into a corner here.
xat

April 3, 2011 at 7:43 pm

I just wish they’d hurry up and get this new world order thing underway already. Every second the dumb, ignorant, religious masses are in any kind of influencial position is another WASTED ON STUPIDITY.

GO, dark orders in secret. Rid these yelping monkey-dogs of the power they simply don’t deserve, even over themselves. Bow before your new masters, you dim-witted peasants, and know you’d never do anywhere near as well as them as a part of the deciding force.
Lance Clutter

April 27, 2011 at 6:08 am

hi there and thanks for your information – I’ve definitely found something new through your blog. I however noticed some on-site difficulties using this blog. I had been curious about whether your web hosting service is ok? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times could likely affect your placement in google and may damage your excellent articles on this site. Well I’m putting this Rss feed to my personal feed reader and will look forward to more of your fascinating posts..
Truther Smasher

May 3, 2011 at 10:16 pm

Attention “Truthers”:
I cant believe Im responding to this.
Check out http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  May 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm
  
  Wow, so-called “Truther Smasher”. That really ended the debate. (Sarcasm intended).
aussie

May 4, 2011 at 10:21 am

Ron Mossad is weak. I looked at the site once a while back and can’t be bothered to look at it again.

As regards to your title, what is the opposite of a Truther I wonder?

A Truster? As in blindly trusting all official narratives and propaganda?
Or someone who is Anti-Truth? Why would anyone want to block or disrupt an honest, open search for truth? What are Anti-Truthers afraid of?
Pingback: A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse | 9/11 - A Cheap Magic Trick
Mary

June 1, 2011 at 4:31 am

In Rochester, MN, according to two known and reliable sources, a long-term apartment complex primarily occupied by individuals from the UAE/Saudi Kingdom (here for medical treatment) nearly emptied out. Notices of vacancy were shoved under Management’s door. Personal belongings were left. Payment of the last month rent was left… Eye witnesses say black SUV’s and “official looking cars” showed up in the wee hours of the morning to take people to the airport. Our Governor, Jesse Ventura, claims he was told not to fly on 9/11. One of the terrorists who allegedly died in one of the WTC attacks was drinking in a bar and was talking about something he was going to do, a message he was going to send….days before the attacks. “We” knew. They knew. The WTC and Building 7 were apparently loaded with documents that resulted from an investigation going back three years. Indictments were about to be handed down on an international group of money brokers caught “in the act”. And then it all went up in flames and smoke. 9/11 gave the government an excuse for secrecy when it should have caused them to become more transparent. Last I heard, nearly 70% of Americans do not believe the official story so clearly the message of the so-called Truthers is getting out and getting through. If the official story is accurate and true, the NIST should have no objection to allowing other scientists access to the information they had in order to put the issue to rest.
The Uprising

June 13, 2011 at 11:26 am

I realize this is a thread about science re. 9-11.

When you use scientific evidence alone you are at the mercy of the experts in those sciences as has been stated in the comments here regarding the Pentagon. This means the majority opinion. They write the textbooks and constitute judge and jury in these regards.

After 8 years of independent research I too believe science can show that the story of what happened on 9-11 cannot be as has been described, and in fact the towers fell via the highest-tech controlled demolition procedures, and that it was prepared for destruction in the weeks prior to the collapse.

However, I cannot understand why more attention has not been given to the other connections, which appear to show more clearly a sinister plan carried out to near perfect execution and that relied as much on deception and pre-meditated criminal activities as expected conformity to scientific laws. There are ethical problems that prove the case for a 9-11 conspiracy more clearly.

Here are many non-scientific aspects to 9-11, but not all, for the sake of brevity here. If any of my facts which are used as basis are wrong let me know. But from what I understand the following are all true:

1) The WTC was leased in a very shady, almost insider-type deal with the man nobody seems to want to mention anymore, Larry SIlverstein. He has connections with Israel’s government, the builders of the new Towers (Tishman Construction and Bloomberg group…etc.), the Port Authority.

2) Post 9-11 “reparations pay” for victims’ survivors was really “hush money” paid out to reduce the frequency of questioning about the “official” version of 9-11. I am told they had to sign a waiver that they would not challenge these determinations. Some 95% of these “surviving spouses” took the hush money.

3) The money trail and the relationship of these white-collar racketeers shows a definite collaboration. Research the connections of Port Authority major players-Bloomberg-Schumer-Giuliani-Tishman-Controlled Demolition-the cleanup crew-the security that day-the chain of command at NORAD-the DESIGNER of the new towers-NIST major players-Silverstein’s insurance- and then some. You will get dizzy in the muddle. You should know Tishman construction contributes to BOTH party candidates the maximum allowable campaign contributions, too. What this will do for your idea of bipatisanship is staggering.

4) The investigation by NIST is a study in incompetence less because of scientific explanation for the collapses (it really gives none) but more because of, again, the players involved.

Our nation is run by the organized crime protected unfairly due to preferential treatment given to those who claim to be Jewish. They are immune.
aubreyfarmer

June 18, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Everyone wants the truth to come out, but that might be the straw that breaks the camels back. As long as the government is able to cover their lies, a second, even larger “false flag” is not necessary. When you see the majority of the public clamoring for a new investigation, watch out. No way would I be anywhere close to a heavily populated area when and if that time ever arrives.