The Rise of Populism


foxnews contrived islamophobia iraq war neocon zionists
Go to Russiagate page....Rachel Maddow and Wolf Blitzer demonized Trump for nearly three years, then the truth hit...their ratings suffered greatly

amazon wordpress banned holocaust revisionist books new source
There's no principle difference between NeoNazism, Jewish Chosenness and White Supremacism...all forms of supremacism are wrong....

holocaust revisionism holohoax auschwitz ig farben hitler germany nuremberg
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

jfk rfk jfk-jr assassination johnson ben gurion israel
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

clinton obama bush death list
Clinton Bush Obama death lists...over 300 names suspicious deaths...Clintons by far the worst

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism
Cultural Marxist goal is to destroy Christian nationalist culture. LGBTQ is just one disengenuously elevate LGBTQ above all other issues as a club against white males...all for Jewish megalomania

yellow vests france nonviolent protest 1 percent 99 percent midwest trump populism
The Yellow Vests movement in France has severely weakoned the (((globalist Jews))) despite government attempts to infiltrate groups with violent actors

newsfollowup link 9-11 jfk holocaust hoax cultural marxism to modern events
Go to original home page

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Communism is just Talmudism politicized.. both seek centralized power, abolish the family, state and Christian religion

9-11 truth israel nuked wtc silverstein netanyahu false flag war iraq afghanistan patriot act
9/11 was a false flag attack on America by a cabal consisting of Israel, US, Britain and Saudi Arabia...executed to start Iraq War
9/11 Home, Page 1, Page 2    

Unraveling the Mysteries of 9/11


Unraveling the Mystery of 9/11
September 11, 2001, was a horrific and tragic day — nearly three thousand people perished in
the terrorist attacks that drove a knife straight into the heart of America. Apart from being a
brutal blow to the pride and stature of the most powerful nation on earth, the events of 9/11 were
also a major wake-up call for many Americans and others around the world. For many reasons,
the attacks of 9/11 inspired a great number of people to begin investigating major world events,
attempting to ascertain what sinister force lies behind such atrocities. By looking at historical
events more deeply and with a more critical eye, many millions of people across the globe have
come to know the truth. In patriot circles it is often said that the engine driving the madness that
has engulfed our planet since 9/11 is the ‘New World Order’ — a coalition of rich and powerful
‘globalists’ hell-bent on transforming the world into a tyrannical prison society. This popular
idea represents only a portion of the
truth. This ‘New World Order’ that is so
often talked about these days is in
reality a ‘Jew World Order’ that is
spearheaded by a contingent of
psychopathic Jewish supremacists who
aim to establish some form of world
dominion, as ancient Jewish religious
texts had prophesied.
The shocking images of the
unbelievable violence that took place on
9/11 have been seared into the
memories of every American citizen.
The remarkable precision and
coordination of the heinous aerial
assaults on the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon was a surreal sight for many.
The unthinkable collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 at nearly free-fall speed raised some
immediate questions. Before the dust of the collapsed Twin Towers had even settled on the
ground, many critical thinkers were already asking hard questions as to what really happened and
who was really behind the attacks. The official explanation of the Bush administration, which
was fully endorsed by the mass media, that nineteen Arabs with box-cutters directed by a
bearded guy in a cave in Afghanistan miraculously made all of this carnage happen, despite a
multi-billion dollar U.S. military, security and defense system standing in their way, is an
outrageous, ridiculous, and preposterous contention — an insult to our intelligence.
The official story of 9/11 is believed by fewer and fewer people every year. Polls are beginning
to show that there are many more people who are skeptical of the U.S. government’s story than
those who blindly accept it. (“Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence,” Angus Reid
Global Monitor, Oct. 14, 2006.) The objective of this work is not to explain or uncover exactly
how 9/11 was done in the physical sense, since there is already a plethora of literature and video
documentaries highlighting the scientific impossibilities of the official story. Rather, this book is
an attempt to elucidate who did it and why. I confidently contend that the official explanation of
what happened on 9/11 has been dismantled, disproved and debunked on every level. The
official story of the attacks, as the governments and mass media of the Western world would
have us all believe, is riddled with holes and blunders. The seemingly endless number of flaws,
contradictions and absurdities of the U.S. government’s official conspiracy theory are
painstakingly detailed in such films as Zero – An Investigation Into 9/11, 9/11 Mysteries, and
Painful Deceptions. Like a sinking ship, the official version of 9/11 has rapidly descended into
the gutter of fictitious fantasies.
I am firmly convinced of the notion that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were demolished with
explosives. The theory that the collapse of the towers and WTC-7 was scientifically improbable
without the use of explosives has been credibly established as a fact. This assertion is not argued
merely by ‘conspiracy theorists’ sitting in their basements watching re-runs of the X-Files, but
by thousands of professional architects and engineers who have put their careers and reputations
on the line to get the truth out to the public about the controlled demolition of the three gigantic
structures that fell to pieces before our very eyes in New York City on 9/11. (See: If the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were brought down with explosives, which all
of the evidence seems to indicate, then the tall tale of nineteen suicidal Muslim hijackers must be
a fabrication, indeed an invention, of the true authors of this terrorist conspiracy. I contend that
the wrong people are still, to this day, falsely being blamed for an atrocity that they did not
commit. Since 9/11, Muslims have been vilified in much the same way that the Germans have
been brutally bad-mouthed and abused in the press and Hollywood entertainment media
following the events of World War Two. I believe that the same group behind the demonization
of the German people is behind the propaganda campaign to make us all believe that Islam and
the Muslims are attacking our civilization and are dangerous enemies that we need to fight. In
the following pages I shall explore in fine detail the overwhelming historical guilt of this group
of people — or this cult of criminals I should say.
With that out of the way, the only questions that remain to be answered are the following:
1. Who did 9/11 and for what purpose?
2. Who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out these acts and have it blamed on
somebody else?
3. Which group or organization had enough control over the American government and news
media to have been able successfully to orchestrate this colossal hoax and initiate a massive
cover-up of their foul deeds?
4. Who had the money to finance this tremendously sophisticated operation?
5. Who had the ability to infiltrate the Pentagon and disable U.S. air defenses to provide four
hijacked passenger planes a clear path to make their way to their designated targets without
getting shot down?
6. Who had the capability to operate planes by remote control?
7. Who had control of the U.S. justice system to make sure that the perpetrators of this act were
not prosecuted?
8. Who had the power to control the NYPD and the FBI to ensure that the true organizers of this
attack were not investigated?
9. Who had the power to allow hundreds of suspects escape to a foreign country?
10. Who had the expertise and know-how in explosives to be able to bring down high-rise
buildings that were specifically constructed to withstand fires and plane impacts?
11. Who had the advanced computer knowledge to coordinate the attacks?
12. Who was most familiar with and had political control over the city of New York where the
attacks took place?
13. Who had a network of spies operating in the United States that could facilitate the attacks?
14. Who has a history of unprovoked attacks and false-flag provocations, some of which that
have been directed against the United States?
15. Who stood to gain from the attacks — cui bono?
16. Did Islamic religious fanatics really carry out the attacks of 9/11, as our media and
governments tell us, or could some other form of religious and/or political fanaticism stand
behind these events?

AE911Truth ...Free Fall Acceleration... WTC


Today, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges that WTC 7 fell at a rate of free fall (or the rate of gravity) for a period of approximately 2.25 seconds before it started to slow down.1 David Chandler, a physics teacher who has studied the behavior of WTC 7 extensively, explains the significance of free fall in the article titled “Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11”: 2

WTC 7 is shown falling symmetrically into its own footprint. It accelerated at free fall for 2.25 seconds of its descent.

“Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down....”

Applying this to WTC 7, he explains:

“[F]ree fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the under- lying structure that would have slowed the fall.... Natural collapse resulting in free fall is simply not plausible....”

Chandler and others therefore interpret WTC 7’s free fall as evidence of controlled demolition. How does NIST explain the occurrence of free fall according to its hypothesis of fire-induced failure? To answer that question satisfactorily, we must first examine NIST’s initial attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall.

NIST’s Denial of Free Fall
On August 21, 2008 — six years to the day after NIST’s World Trade Center investigation was first announced — NIST released its draft report on WTC 7 for public comment. In it, NIST described the collapse time of WTC 7 as being 40 percent longer than the time it would take to collapse in free fall:

“The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time....” 3

NIST repeated this claim in its Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (WTC 7 FAQs), stating unequivocally, “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.” NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, repeated it again at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, when asked the following question, which had been submitted by David Chandler:

Chandler: “Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?”

Dr. Sunder responded by articulating the meaning of free fall in the clearest terms possible, but denied that is what happened in the case of WTC 7:

Dr. Shyam Sunder explains the meaning of free fall at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008.

Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis that same time it took for the structural model to come 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

NIST’s Alleged 5.4-Second Collapse Time
The reason for the discrepancy between Chandler’s measurement and NIST’s measurement is contained in Dr. Sunder’s statement above, where he explains that NIST’s computer model showed a collapse time of 5.4 seconds. As Chandler comments in Part 1 of the video series NIST Finally Admits Free Fall:

“Don’t you find it interesting that the 5.4 seconds [NIST] measured for the collapse time just happens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of their model? That kind of precision is incredibly rare when modeling real world events.”

Indeed, when we count backwards 5.4 seconds from the point at which the roofline disappears from view, we find that there is no obvious, continuous movement of the building that could be reasonably interpreted as the start of the collapse. According to Chandler, “Since their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18-story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a 5.4-second measurement to match [the model].” Then, NIST assumed that the downward acceleration during those 5.4 seconds was “approximately constant” 4 — even though the building was almost entirely motionless for more than a second. Based upon this inaccurate characterization of WTC 7’s motion, NIST denied the occurrence of free fall.

NIST’s Acknowledgment of Free Fall
To the surprise of many observers, NIST reversed its position in its final report, acknowledging that WTC 7 did enter free fall for 2.25 seconds. But NIST still maintained the total collapse time of 5.4 seconds, which now comprised three separate stages:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity 5
However, in the first stage — which NIST characterizes as “a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded with the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors” — the building is actually nearly motionless. By asserting a first stage in which we are to imagine “the buckling of exterior columns” causing “a slow descent,” NIST is obscuring an important feature of WTC 7’s free fall: its sudden onset. In Part 3 of the video series NIST Finally Admits Free Fall, Chandler observes:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [plotting the rate of acceleration] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly....”

Chandler then describes a second important feature of WTC 7’s free fall:

“The onset of free fall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building. My measurement of the acceleration was based on the northwest corner. NIST’s recent measurement confirming free fall was based on a point midway along the roofline.”

Taking the rate of acceleration, suddenness, and symmetry of WTC 7’s descent into account, Chandler concludes:

David Chandler’s graph from Part 3 of “NIST Finally Admits Free Fall” plots the velocity of WTC 7’s roofline versus time. The slope shows a free-fall rate of acceleration. The sudden change in slope shows the sudden onset of free fall.

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

While the hypothesis of controlled demolition explains WTC 7’s free fall readily, simply, and completely, NIST’s final report provided no explanation for how free fall was accomplished. It simply asserted, “The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9,” (the chapter that presents the results of NIST’s “global model”). But that statement is incorrect. As discussed in The Official Theory, the free fall in Stage 2 is not shown in NIST’s model.

[1] NIST: NCSTAR 1A, p. 48.

[2] Chandler, David: “Free Fall and Building 7 on 9/11,” (Reprinted by AE911Truth in April 2014).

[3] NIST: NCSTAR 1A Draft Report, p. 41.

[4] NIST: NCSTAR 1A Draft Report, p. 40. The term “descent speed,” used in the cited sentence, was an error made by NIST. “Acceleration” was meant.

[5] This condensed description of the three stages of WTC 7’s collapse appears in NIST’s WTC 7 FAQs

WMR Mohammed Atta may have been a Mossad Agent

Following yesterday's WMR special report on the 9/11 "hijacking" cells being run by the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency, we have been contacted by reliable sources who have evidence that "lead hijacker" Mohamed Atta and his cohort, Ziad Jarreh, may have been Mossad agents or double agents. There is also no actual proof that any of the "hijacking" teams ever made it aboard any of the four flights on 9/11. Autopsies of bodies discovered at the Pentagon yielded no Arab identities and there were no Arab names on any of the flight manifests.

In September 2009, WMR reported: "Last year, two Lebanese brothers — Ali Jarreh and Youssef Jarreh — were arrested by Lebanese authorities who linked the pair to an espionage cell responsible for the car bombing assassination of Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus in February 2008. The Jarrah’s were found by the Lebanese Army in possession of 'communication devices and other sophisticated equipment.' The Jarrahs arrested by the Lebanese had been recruited by the Mossad in the 1980s when Israel occupied a large section of Lebanon. And for a Paul Harvey-like “rest of the story,” they are related to Ziad Jarreh, the man who was said to have been a close associate and fellow hijacking planner of Mohamed Atta and whose American visa was found with photo and visa number largely intact in a field in Pennsylvania on 9/11."

WMR has also been informed by a Joint Terrorism Task Force source stationed in New York in 2001 that Atta lived in Fort Lee, New Jersey in August 2001 and was protected by Israeli "art students" who lived close to Atta in Fort Lee. The art students, identified as Mossad agents by the FBI and CIA, lived in Fort Lee from June to September 2001.

Atta maintained high-level contacts in Saudi intelligence and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI), giving the Mossad plausible deniability of any relationship with Atta. FBI teams were denied access to the passenger manifest of the El Al plane that exfiltrated scores of Mossad agents from New York's JFK airport to Tel Aviv in the afternoon of 9/11. There is reason by some FBI agents to believe that "Mohamed Atta" was among the passengers on the El Al escape flight.


Robert Mueller's Role in the 9/11 Coverup .... LaRouchePac

Robert Swan Mueller III—the special prosecutor tasked to take down the President of the United States—is, as his name attests, a product of elite private schools and universities. He is uniformly and soberly praised in the national news media as incorruptible, fair-minded “honest Bob,” “strait-laced Bobby three sticks.” This image, we shall show, is a brazenly false, Washington, D.C. public relations pitch, created for the credulous.

In reality, Robert Swan Mueller III is about as corrupt as they come, bending and twisting the law every which way necessary to serve the goals of those who provide him assignments. The might of the prosecutorial function and the institutions he serves dictate right for him, rather than the unbiased pursuit of justice the law envisions for his vocation. In what he says was a defining moment, Mueller broke rank, after college, to serve in the Vietnam War as a Marine. After that he never wanted to do anything but prosecute. His appointment as special prosecutor caps a long career in which he has envisioned himself to be a stern and willing warrior, a dutiful Marine, acting on behalf of whatever evil scheme his superiors present to him, and using whatever means seems necessary to execute it.

In recent weeks, organizers for the LaRouche movement have been repeatedly told by citizens they meet: “It looks like President Trump is getting the ‘LaRouche treatment.’” The two men could not be more different in station, or cultural and intellectual achievement. LaRouche is a world-historical genius in the mold of Gottfried Leibniz. But, both men touched what has amounted to the third rail of American politics after Franklin Roosevelt’s death. They threatened the post-War Anglo-American British imperial system. LaRouche did so directly, continuously, and explicitly by name. Trump has done so implicitly, by rejecting perpetual war, seeking better relations with Russia, calling for imposition of Glass-Steagall banking separation, endorsing what he refers to as the American System of political economy, and promising massive infrastructure development and a modern manufacturing platform for productive jobs.

President Donald Trump and American Statesman Lyndon LaRouche. Trump photo credit: Gage Skidmore

In both cases, as we shall see, the British explicitly demanded scalps, based on a perceived threat to them, most specifically located in the desire for a collaborative relationship with Russia and an end to the “unipolar” framework of relationships between nations. In both cases, a controlled media unleashed an incessant barrage of ugly, salacious, and defamatory coverage, day-in day-out, to create the popular conditions for a criminal prosecution. While there were and are many other players in these Kabuki dances—compromised and terrorized politicians and judges, and an intelligence community which functions as the gendarme of our Orwellian police state—the blunt instrument chosen for the hit was Robert Mueller. Along the way, between the two assignments, Robert Mueller played a hugely significant role in covering up the Saudi/British role in the murders of almost 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, and the wholesale destruction of the United States Constitution which followed in its wake—a role which, if thoroughly examined, constitutes obstruction of justice, among other crimes.

This dossier will walk you through Mueller’s career based on what is readily and publicly available. It is a trail of prosecutorial misconduct, including what former Senator Bob Graham calls “aggressive deception” of the U.S. Congress and the public concerning the events of September 11, 2001, and includes a major role in the creation of the post-9/11 surveillance state which has eviscerated and destroyed the Fourth Amendment and the rest of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Those who work inside our modern Leviathan can surely point to other malfeasance, and we invite you pile on—please, expose it. You owe no less to your oath to the Constitution of the United States.

Stephen Francis, founder of

Stephen Francis, editor, founder of is an antiwar activist and internet blogger dedicated to uncovering the myriad of lies fed to the people of the world by the elite establishment. He has been a speaker and facilitator at numerous academic freedom and 9/11 Truth conferences held online and at the University of Illinois. The impetus for these actions emanates from his experiences with the US Army in 1969 where he was one of four soldiers that were arrested and charged with disobeying direct orders from at least three officers. The orders were to get on a bus during a protest against the Vietnam War on Veterans Day 1969. He was released from custody because of overcrowding and fled to Canada. He eventually turned himself in and was kicked out of the military with an other than honorable discharge of which he is proud to possess. His experiences in the military solidified his belief that US military machine and all its civilian counterparts is an egregious monster that consumes for profit the lives of innocent young Americans and only serves to wreck havoc on the citizens of the world. It should be dismantled and its progenitors be brought to justice in war criminal proceedings. Israeli Zionists have used the US military for the purposes of advancing the goals of Israel for decades and should be included in these proceedings.


UProfessor Leroy Hulsey...WTC7 Evaluation

WTC 7 Evaluation Nearing the Finish Line: An Interview with Dr. Leroy Hulsey

September 10, 2018

Editor’s Note: On our most recent episode of 9/11 Free Fall, Dr. Leroy Hulsey joined host Andy Steele to update listeners on the WTC 7 study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), which is nearing completion. We are pleased to make this special episode of 9/11 Free Fall available as a transcribed interview to go along with the podcast. Stay tuned for the draft report of the UAF WTC 7 study in the coming months!

Andy Steele (AS): Dr. Leroy Hulsey got a BS in civil engineering I 1965 from the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy and an MS in civil engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla in 1966. He did post-graduate work at the University of Illinois at the Ph.D. level from 1968 to 1971, and in 1976 he got his Ph.D. in structural engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla. He has owned and run three high-tech engineering research corporations and has extensive teaching and research experience. Currently he's the chair of the civil engineering and environmental engineering department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

We're going to be talking about the World Trade Center 7 Study, giving an important update to our audience. He's here to do that. First, Dr. Hulsey, I just want to welcome you back to 9/11 Free Fall.

Leroy Hulsey (LH): Thank you. I appreciate that.

AS: Before we get started, for newcomers, people who may not be aware of who you are and what the study is about, briefly tell us more about yourself and why you decided to undertake this study.

LH: One of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth contacted me. He is originally from the East Coast and is now located in Anchorage. He was looking for a person who could actually conduct research. So he made contact with me. That was several years ago. I turned the opportunity down to do the research work. The approach was made again and I turned it down again. The approach was made again, and I put together an estimate of what I thought it would cost to do it. The dialogue began. At that point I decided I was old enough to not worry about whether there would be any consequences to this, so I went ahead and said, “Okay, I'll do it.”

At the end of the day, I began the study for the sole purpose of bringing the truth to what had been done previously and try to explain how this building may have come down, or may not have—I may not be able to fully explain it, but we can certainly tell you what didn't happen. That's what my goals have been from the very beginning—to at least establish that pattern. Right now we're close to having everything completed.

AS: Please tell us what the study is, and also tell us what a finite element analysis is, exactly, for the layman.

LH: Okay, so as a forensic engineer, I would typically like to take a building that has come down and try to explain every little detail of what may have happened, what may have transpired. And typically you would have the broken elements of the building there to sort your way through, to have metallurgical tests done on the samples. You'd do all kinds of investigations on various parts and pieces in the laboratory. And then through that process that's the experimental process.

And then from there you would develop basically a computer model to simulate what that building truly was in the real world.

That is what we often call a finite element model, meaning that we take the system in its entirety and break it up in discrete little pieces and then put it all back together, so it looks like the real structure.

A jigsaw puzzle is an example of taking a beautiful picture and cutting it up in all these little pieces and if put back together right, it looks the original picture.

That's what this does, except mathematically, we can then begin to look at the stress throughout each one of those little pieces and how they connect to each other and how they respond and work together. That's what we ended up doing—using two finite element computer programs for the whole purpose of being able to understand, as the result of certain effects, how that building might respond to those conditions.

And then we also used the two computer programs for the purpose of correlating the results to see if the two models with two different programs were giving us comparable, if not the same, results.

I also had two Ph.D. working for me—one of those is still with me, the other graduated. They did, individually, evaluations of the same stuff, so that we could correlate their thinking with each other.

And also, as a third quality control standard, I then reviewed their work. So the process was checked and checked and rechecked to ensure that what we were doing was accurate and that our interpretations of the results were the same.

Now keep in mind, when I said that initially, as a forensic engineer, I would start experimentally, we didn’t have that option here. We did not have the option of having parts and pieces and crumbled debris to be able to evaluate the materials. That just wasn't an option for us. However, what we did use was the erection drawings: Take those erection drawings, which is what the building was built by, and from that create our computer models. But we were not able to correlate against experimental damages that were out there in the field. That was all hauled away before we ever had access to it, unfortunately.

And so, though that is an issue that concerned me. But we feel like what we've done is quite accurate and quite understandable and very beneficial to help you understand what may have actually happened here.

What you haven’t seen anything about—I made a presentation on September 6th last year. I haven't said anything since. Since September 6th we've been working on progressive collapse and those issues.

At that time, I said very clearly and emphatically that fire did not bring this building down. Since then, we've been looking at various aspects of what the building collapse might look like. Right now I can tell you, without anybody seeing it yet, that if you take our building and put it in a video beside the real building coming down, the two side by side, they look almost identical, which is quite different than what you've seen previously by the analysis that was done by NIST. Their building looks quite different in the way it comes down versus the way the true building came down.

So at this point in time, we are effectively about two weeks from having all of the analysis done on the progressive collapse. We're basically just going through and refining it. Then we will have a report by the end of the year. The idea there is to try to have sufficient people reviewing our work to provide a peer review of our effort. That would be in the structural area, perhaps the materials side, perhaps the architectural side, so that we have truly a quality review by the peers.

So that's where we are. We're close to being done. We intend to have everything written by somewhere before the end of the year.

AS: Right. And it's impressive work. I know a lot of effort has been put into it by yourself, by the graduate students. And this is a very important study that is coming out here. I mean, it's probably one of the most important ones in our century currently. And I'm not overstating it, because this is a very controversial issue. A lot of engineers are not satisfied with the story that we've gotten from NIST. A lot of family members are not satisfied. And this is actually doing what NIST should have done.

I want to go back to what you said about how your model looks more like the building as it comes down as opposed to NIST's, which, from my own layman point of view, looks like one of those novelty soda cans crinkling in the Spencer shops—you know, that twists around.

I just want you to analyze that a little bit. What do you think you did differently from NIST to achieve that outcome?

LH: Well, it's not completely clear everything they did for progressive collapse, but here's a couple things that they did do which effects their results. When they modeled the building, they only modeled the connections over part of the floor system. The other part they approximated by what’s called pins and joints—fixed joints and so forth. It turns out that the stiffness within those two areas are quite different by making that decision to try to simplify computer time, if that's what they were doing.

They actually affected the behavior of the structure. And so if you take that idea and you progress it all the way to the 47 stories and begin to look at what happened if you take out some floors and take out some columns and the building starts coming down, you'll notice that part of that building is quite different in looks than the other part of the building. That's where the stiffness values are changing.

What we've done is model the building with connections. We simulated those connections accurately and put in springs to save computer time. But those springs act like the true connections in the building. When you do that, you actually want to get a representation that is highly accurate of what that building would be subjected to if you put a load on it.

So that's at least one of the differences.

AS: It's just interesting that you can do this—recreate the building, throw it through all these different scenarios. We're going to talk about the different scenarios you've tried. But first, for the audience, please describe NIST's collapse scenario—what they said happened inside the building to make it look like a controlled demolition and how you went about trying to simulate it. You've touched on this already, but what steps did you do to try to get that entire internal structure to go down and leave that exterior standing?

LH: Well, I don't know that I'm prepared today to give you all the details of what NIST did. I can tell you how they were looking at column 79 coming down and affecting the floors down below, and the number of floors that were affected. The vertical supporting lateral restraint on the north side only was from floor 8 to floor 13, and they had lateral support buckling initiated over nine floors. That was their argument of what may have actually happened during the collapse. We attempted to do that same simulation and we could not get anywhere close to the answers that they were talking about—using two different computer programs, two different individuals trying to accomplish that same task. There's just no way that that could've occurred, according to our results and our studies.

We've taken a look at things quite differently than NIST did. Their argument was that the floor was not compositely connected to the girders and didn't have shear connectors on the beams, and so all of that would affect the behavior. Actually, we found that they did have shear connectors on their girders. We studied it with shear connectors and without shear connectors and found that there was sufficient friction to enable that thing to behave—particularly since there were shear connectors on the beams, and there's no argument about that.

So, consequently, the floor stiffness was quite a bit significantly better than they thought it was. And so when you take a look at that massive concrete resistance, with the floor systems and the beams and the girders all working together as a unit, it's going to take a tremendous effort to get that to start acting like they were suggesting it had to do.

Furthermore, what we determined is that they treated the exterior walls as fixed. That simply was not the case. So we actually applied the connections that actually were installed in the building as springs and simulated the behavior around the exterior of the building as well as the interior of the building to get the performance. So when it begins to move, there is some resistance to rotation, but not a lot.

Furthermore, it's pretty interesting to make sure that if we looked at the concrete floor, it should be connected to the girders and the beams but not necessarily to the columns. So that we looked at as well to evaluate the potential influence of the floor and the beam-girder system and the column system and how that all interacted.

The other thing we did which was quite a bit different in terms of the behavior is we actually attempted to get an understanding of the aggregate that was actually used at the job site. Those aggregates have a certain behavioral characteristic both thermally as well as mechanically.

AS: Before you continue, what is an aggregate, for our audience?

LH: Broken rocks and sand.

AS: Okay.

LH: They put it into cement and water and they stir it up and they take it out to the job site and they pour it—they place it in a set of form and it hardens. And then they use floats to actually float it down. If it's a trowel finish they trowel it, and then you get a smooth floor system out of it. Once it's hardened, then it carries load as well.

Okay, so then we begin to look at the potential ways that this building could come down. Now keep in mind, we should not forget that we have video of some of building as it comes down. There's just no doubt about that. The top 26 stories we can see everything that's going on, at least on one side or two.

So if you take our building and you put it there and you subject it to some condition, what happens to your building? What is it going to take to make that building act like the true building? At that point in time, we began to look at alternate things that might have occurred.

Lots and lots and lots of people argue that, okay, the interior columns came out first, they went down, and they dragged the exterior columns in, and they buckled and it folded down upon itself.

Well, if you look at the video, that couldn't have happened.

And if you look at the video, in another sense there's an exterior surface on that wall system and that exterior surface is not very structural. So if there's any movement relative to one column to another, one member to another, you're going to see it on the surface of that sheathing. And you just don't see much.

Therefore, that tells you automatically, if it's not bending with respect to its neighbor, not moving with respect to its neighbor, then the two neighbors are going down together. And if that's the case, there's no relative displacement between the edges, which means that there's no warping and there's no bending and there's no rippling and there's no—any of that stuff on that surface.

That being said, that's telling you that it's a free fall condition. So that's what we're finding right now.

AS: One thing about this whole issue that I think makes it very difficult is the disagreement over certain facts. And I'll use one example. In NIST's report, they claim there is raging fires under the beams that pushed the girder off its seat, but when you look at the actual pictures of an hour before, the fires are out in the area of collapse initiation. So now this takes it into a realm where it's not just a math problem you give to high school students—you know, 5 plus 7, this is the answer, and one guy does it right and one guy does it wrong—but it's taking in different evidence points. And NIST, in my view, was selectively making the evidence—fitting it with the results that they wanted to come to. How much did that affect your research into this study?

LH: What we did is, we said: “Okay, we're not going to argue with you about the fires. We'll just take those fires and use them, which is a worse scenario than is truly out there. And if we can't determine the same thing you did with that, then obviously one of us is wrong.”

So that's what we did. And we determined a number of things through that process. First of all, we put the fires there. We let it move. And the first thing we discovered is their movement of five and a half inches—when they first said that it moved off and shoved off the support and that enabled column 79 to not be braced and it came buckling down. Well, guess what: They forgot the fact that there was a stiffener plate there that prevented it from being able to be shoved off.

Secondly, there were a number of factors associated with that whole scenario. They also were looking at the expansion of the girder and on the floor system. And if you really stop and take a look at that, when you heat up a floor, it's going to start moving with respect to the stiffest point. And what NIST did is that they fixed the exterior walls, and when they did that, the floor system moved away from the exterior wall system. And therefore it shoved it. They claimed it shoved it five and a half inches—they later said, I think, it was around six inches—off of that seat. But, again, there was a stiffener there, and it couldn't have happened.

But in our analysis, we did not lock in that exterior wall. We put the connections that were actually built into the building there—as well as the rest of it—and let that thing move. And when it moved, it did not move from the exterior wall inward towards column 79, it moved just the opposite. So we were getting horizontal movements in the neighborhood of one point two (1.2) inches, maybe two inches, not five and a half or six inches. So there was just no way it was going to move off of anything.

That automatically says, okay, what they're saying is not one of those things that could've happened.

Now, the next question to is ask yourself, “Okay, so were these fires. Really? Where did the combustibles come from?” We're talking about fires on floors much of which were conditions of business or secure information. Don't you think that that stuff would've been locked up in files and cases, and not out on the desk? And even if was out on the desks, are there enough combustibles to keep that fire raging for that many hours? I just don't think so.

So there are just so many issues with respect to what they were coming up with in terms of a solution, and it was not consistent with what was actually built there.

Furthermore, what I did, which was a lot different than they, I attempted to get the actual aggregate for the floor, dolomite. I looked at the thermal expansion and—I wrote a paper about this some years ago, about what it takes to expand the concrete with different aggregates and how that correlates with the steel expansion; they are different.

I saw no evidence where they actually considered the floor system expanding at a different rate than the girders and the beams. So all of that also impacted the end result.

We looked at all those issues very carefully and looked at the possibility of whether the building could actually have come down as they said it would. And I see no—nothing in our analysis shows that could've even remotely been possible.

AS: Now you talk about “remotely possible”: The scenario of this girder getting pushed off its seat and all these internal failures happening to cause the inside come down and leave the exterior standing as a shell for a few moments before it comes down—and that's why it looks like a controlled demolition, according to them—can the exterior columns ever still stand if the core columns have failed?

LH: Well, I don't know. I can tell you that we were not able to get that to happen. Our analysis does not show that that's a possibility. We tried to simulate whether they actually buckled inward, as many people argue. We tried to simulate all those conditions, and we used more than one computer program. We even took simpler models to examine the theory behind that whole phenomenon, and it became very clear that that was not going to happen.

So, that means something else is happening—right?—to get the conditions they saw.

AS: Let's get into something else there. First I want to ask: What other scenarios were plugged into the finite element analysis besides what they were claiming happened?

LH: You mean by them or by us?

AS: By NIST, with the official story, obviously you want to check that scenario. But what other scenarios? Because there are people who come out of the woodwork and say, “Well, maybe NIST got it wrong, but I don't believe it's controlled demolition. Maybe this or that happened instead.” They’ll throw out theories. What other ideas were looked into?

LH: I don't know that I can be prepared to talk about every little detail that NIST did in that regard today, but I can tell you that we looked at every aspect of what we thought could happen in that scenario. And you've got to remember something: This building is not symmetrical. Because it's not symmetrical, if something happens some place within the building, it's not going to come straight down. It's going to come down at an angle or rotate or any number of things, because the centroid of that building is not in the middle. It's just not. And so if there are things that are going on that cause it to come straight down, then there's got to be influences to make that happen. And I didn't see a lot of evidence where they were doing a big study about that thought.

We have extensively studied that carefully. I'm not going to tell you that it's controlled demolition. I'm going to tell you that we looked at various modes of failure, and in those modes of failure we have ended up with a result that looks very, very comparable to what the building actually went through when it came down.

AS: Now in terms of those modes of failure that look like the way the building came down, could you get into that with our audience?

LH: I can tell you that we looked at several floor levels, taking out the interior columns. The core columns. And then we delayed the coming down of the exterior columns and we determined that wasn't what really happened because the behavior was totally different. The columns, if they were going to fold inward, didn’t happen. We tried everything. We looked at the individual column-buckling behavior from the bottom of the substation all the way to the top. We looked at various aspects of every single column to try to understand what it would take to do what many people think it did. We couldn't ever get it to do those things.

So then we started looking at severing the exterior columns as well. And when we began to do that, then the behavior of the system begins to look a lot like the—and I'm talking about after or just simultaneously to the interior columns—then you're getting a behavior that's very, very similar to what you see in the video.

AS: What could cause those columns to sever in those moments? What natural phenomenon do you think could cause that many core columns to just break at the same time to give us what we saw that day?

LH: I don't believe there is a natural phenomenon that's going to do that.

AS: Well, I will let our audience draw their own conclusions from that statement. Obviously, the report is going to be coming out very soon—by the end of the year. They can look into this in more detail when it does come out. What's next? I mean, you touched on this before, but when you’re all completed, all the work is done, you said it's going to be published as a paper. Please describe that process for our audience so they can know what to expect.

LH: I don't believe it's going to be one paper. I think it's going to be several papers.

Before I get there, let me talk about something else that's really kind of an important idea here. If it truly was fire, as NIST believes it is, or say they believe it to be, then there had to be a professional responsibility to change the codes so that we as structural engineers of record can prevent a failure like this in the future. Yet nothing like that was done, to my knowledge.

Secondly, if it was not fire and was something else, then there's a responsibility to make people aware of what really did truly happen. And I don't see that evidence either.

So if there was a fire issue, then there had to be a responsibility to change and update the codes to protect against future fire damages.

But if you go back and you look at history, take a look at the number of buildings that have come down because of fire—ha, there aren't any.

So, at the end of the day, that gives you some indication of the fact that this building—there are more questions than there are answers.

Now, coming back to the question you asked: We will probably submit several papers for publication. And right now my Ph.D. student is working on about four papers in his Ph.D. Three of those are not related to World Trade Center 7 but they are related to fires and to fire testing and to fire codes and to fire responsive behavior. And the last paper is on the progressive collapse of this building.

I expect there to be at least four papers come of out this study—and I'm talking about in respected journals around the country. I'm not overly optimistic that they will be published in this country. I'm probably going to submit them in Europe or some place like that where people are more receptive to reviewing them scientifically, and maybe there won't be as much politics involved in what may or may not have happened here.

AS: Yeah, to me, from what I've experienced, it's not even a question of science, it's a question of politics—and psychology, too. Because a lot of what holds people back from doing a fair analysis is preconceived notions that they won't let go of. But I do want to see this out around the world. I know the difficulties we face her in the United States in getting information about this building out. What kind of challenges do you expect to find when the paper is published? What do you anticipate are the criticisms or problems that people are going to try to find with the work?

LH: You know, I don't even know. I don't know that there could be too many challenges if it's published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, because those are supposed to be scientists that review it and agree that the science is correct.

If people start criticizing that work, then I guess an approach is to say, “Okay, show me where there are problems. Show me why yours is better. Show me what you can do to prove that something is different than what we said it is.”

AS: That is how science works. That is how we come to truth. And I think that is the best answer that I could've heard. You're a teacher, and you have to deal with students throughout the year, and you talk to them about the profession that they want to take on—a very important profession. Every time we step into a building, we see the good work of people like Dr. Hulsey here, as the building doesn't come down. They’re very sturdy and last for years and that requires a lot of education. What particular ramifications, for the engineering community, and your students going into their careers, will this study and this issue have, in your view?

LH: Well, I think somewhere along the way we've got to come to a realization that it was either a fire or it wasn't. If it’s a fire then the code needs to change—if it was a fire failure then the code needs to change. If it was not, then say that, and get on with the business at hand, and we move and we fire-protect the buildings just like we have always. Or maybe do a little better job, but at least realize that it's going to take a lot to have a problem.

AS: Dr. Hulsey, I think that is a very good update. You gave us your time frame. You told us some about what your findings were. I just want to know now, do you have any final thoughts or anything that you want to get out there to the audience that I didn't think to ask you today?

LH: Well, I don't know how well we're going to be able to do this, but it's my intention right now to show the building video as it's coming down and beside it, our anticipated failure type, with our building coming down in the same framework of the video, so you could see it coming down, and the time it takes for it come down, and the way it comes down, comparison one by one, those two side by side. That's what I want to show. If this is really very, very good—and I anticipate it to be really good—then the layman can see, without having to worry about the science, here's what our analysis shows, here's what the building did.

AS: Well, that is going to be available for everybody to see. I know there's going to be a lot of interest in this. So, when we have the video, we'll direct everybody to it. Dr. Hulsey, I know it's been a long time you've been at this. Believe me, I know what it's like to be on a projects for a number of years and be coming towards the completion of it. I'm working on one right now. So I appreciate all the hard work that you and your students have put into this. Looking forward to the results. And thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall.

LH: You betcha. You have a good evening and a good day.

Tactical Nukes and 9/11

This gifs illustrate the similarities between tactical nukes and the 9/11 event. Nanothermite does not have sufficient detonation velocity to turn steel columns into dust within microseconds. It would take a small army and literally tons of nanothermite that would require placement on each of the thousands of beams in the WTC in order for have some chance of success, where with tactical nukes only a few workers and a small van could accomplish the job in a matter of hours.

mininuke mininuke mininuke

mininuke mininuke mininuke


Unraveling the Mystery of 9/11



© 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact: [email protected]

free hit counter javascript   

9-11 9-11 vimeo