9/11 Archives: “On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses”
Steve Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter
Republished as part of our 9/11: From the Archives series, where we revisit some of OffG’s best 9/11 articles over the years for the benefit of our post-Covid audience.
* * *
In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11):
- the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and
- the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane.
NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the
WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”
Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.
Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.
Preventing high-rise failures
Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons:
- Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);
- Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
- Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
- Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
W
.FIG.1:WTC5 is an example of how steel- framed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001 (a), and did not suffer a total collapse (b) (Source: FEmA)
Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1 a and b) [1].
In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist loads generated during other extreme events — in particular, high winds and earthquakes. Designing for high-wind and seismic events mainly requires the ability of the structure to resist lateral loads, which generate both tensile and compressive stresses in the columns due to bending, the latter stresses then being combined with gravity-induced compressive stresses due to vertical loads.
FIG.2: WTC7fell symmetrically and at free-fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 seconds of its collapse (Source: NIST).
It was not until steel became widely manufactured that the ability to resist large lateral loads was achieved and the construction of high-rises became possible. Steel is both very strong and ductile, which allows it to withstand the tensile stresses generated by lateral loads, unlike brittle materials, such as concrete, that are weak in tension. Although concrete is used in some high-rises today, steel reinforcement is needed in virtually all cases.
To allow for the resistance of lateral loads, high-rises are often designed such that the percentage of their columns’ load capacity used for gravity loads is relatively low. The exterior columns of the Twin Towers, for example, used only about 20% of their capacity to withstand gravity loads, leaving a large margin for the additional lateral loads that occur during high-wind and seismic events [2].
Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact, had been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”
Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers.
“However,” he added, “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage […] I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.
Techniques of controlled demolition
Controlled demolition is not a new practice. For years it was predominantly done with cranes swinging heavy iron balls to simply break buildings into small pieces. Occasionally, there were structures that could not be brought down this way. In 1935, the two 191-m-tall Sky Ride towers of the 1933 World’s Fair in Chicago were demolished with 680 kg of thermite and 58 kg of dynamite. Thermite is an incendiary containing a metal powder fuel (most commonly aluminum) and a metal oxide (most com- monly iron(III) oxide or “rust”).
Eventually, when there were enough large steel-framed buildings that needed to be brought down more efficiently and inexpensively, the use of shaped cutter charges became the norm. Because shaped charges have the ability to focus explosive energy, they can be placed so as to diagonally cut through steel columns quickly and reliably.
FIG. 3: The final frame of NIST’s WTC 7 computer model shows large deformations to the exterior not observed in the videos (Source: NIST)
In general, the technique used to demolish large buildings involves cutting the columns in a large enough area of the building to cause the intact portion above that area to fall and crush itself as well as crush whatever remains below it.
This technique can be done in an even more sophisticated way, by timing the charges to go off in a sequence so that the columns closest to the center are destroyed first. The failure of the interior columns creates an inward pull on the exterior and causes the majority of the building to be pulled inward and downward while materials are being crushed, thus keeping the crushed materials in a somewhat confined area — often within the building’s “footprint.” This method is often referred to as “implosion.”
The case of WTC 7
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion:
- The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3].
- Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second.
- It fell symmetrically straight down.
- Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.
- Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.
Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
FIG.4: The above graph[10]comparesDavid Chandler’s measurement[9] of the velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 with Bažant’s erroneous calculation [11] and with Szamboti and Johns’ calculation using corrected input values for mass, acceleration through the first story, conservation of momentum, and plastic moment (the maximum bending moment a structural section can withstand). The calculations show that—in the absence of explosives—the upper section of WTC 1 would have arrested after falling for two stories (Source: Ref. [10]).
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”
NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,
Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.
All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying,
[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed,
there was structural resistance that was provided.
Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections — also due to thermal expansion — left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle.
FIG. 5: High-velocity bursts of debris, or “squibs,” were ejected from point-like sources in WTC 1 and WTC 2, as many as 20 to 30 stories below the collapse front (Source: Noah K. murray).
This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
The case of the Twin Towers
Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words,
The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower….this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]
Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections — which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]— nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses.
When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was
unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse
because
the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.
However, NIST did do one thing in an attempt to substantiate its assertion that the lower floors would not be able to arrest or slow the descent of the upper sections in a gravity-driven collapse. On page 323 of NCSTAR 1-6, NIST cited a paper by civil engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant and his graduate student, Yong Zhou, that was published in January 2002 [7] which, according to NIST, “addressed the question of why a total collapse occurred” (as if that question were naturally outside the scope of its own investigation).
FIG. 6: molten metal was seen pouring out of WTC 2 continuously for the seven minutes leading up to its collapse (Sources: WABC-Tv, NIST).
In their paper, Bažant and Zhou claimed there would have been a powerful jolt when the falling upper section impacted the lower section, causing an amplified load sufficient to initiate buckling in the columns. They also claimed that the gravitational energy would have been 8.4 times the energy dissipation capacity of the columns during buckling.
In the years since, researchers have measured the descent of WTC 1’s upper section and found that it never decelerated — i.e. there was no powerful jolt [8-9]. Researchers have also criticized Bažant’s use of free-fall acceleration through the first storey of the collapse, when measurements show it was actually roughly half of gravitational acceleration [2].After falling for one story, the measurements show a 6.1 m/s velocity instead of the 8.5 m/s velocity that would be the result of free fall. This difference in velocity effectively doubles the kinetic energy, because it is a function of the square of the velocity.
In addition, researchers have demonstrated that the 58 × 106 kg mass Bažant used for the upper section’s mass was the maximum design load—not the actual 33 × 106 kg service load [10]. Together, these two errors embellished the kinetic energy of the falling mass by 3.4 times. In addition, it has been shown that the column energy dissipation capacity used by Bažant was at least 3 times too low [2].
In January 2011 [11] Bažant and another graduate student of his, Jia-Liang Le, attempted to dismiss the lack-of-deceleration criticism by claiming there would be a velocity loss of only about 3%, which would be too small to be observed by the camera resolution. Le and Bažant also claimed conservation-of-momentum velocity loss would be only 1.1%. However, it appears that Le and Bažant erroneously used an upper section mass of 54.18 × 106 kg and an impacted floor mass of just 0.627 × 106 kg, which contradicted the floor mass of 3.87 × 106 kg Bažant had used in earlier papers.
The former floor mass is representative of the concrete floor slab only, whereas the latter floor mass includes all the other materials on the floor. Correcting this alone increases the conservation-of-momentum velocity loss by more than 6 times, to a value of 7.1%. Additionally, the column energy dissipation has been shown to be far more significant than Bažant claimed. Researchers have since provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over one storey would not only decelerate, but would actually arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10].
Other evidence unexplained
The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers. Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed.
Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources (see Fig. 5). NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them [6]. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.
NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6].
Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance — thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13].
As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, have been documented as saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives appears to have been the initial prevailing view among most first responders. “I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a fire marshal.“Everyone I think at that point still thought these things were blown up” [15].
Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists.
Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Steven Jones is a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University. His major research interests have been in the areas of fusion, solar energy, and archaeometry. He has authored or co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction and evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.
Robert Korol is a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engi- neering and the Engineering Institute of Canada. His major research interests have been in the areas of structural mechanics and steel structures. More recently, he has undertaken experimen- tal research into the post-buckling resistance of H-shaped steel columns and into the energy absorption associated with pulverization of concrete floors
Anthony Szamboti is a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries. Since 2006, he has authored or co-authored a number of technical papers on the WTC high-rise failures that are published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and in the International Journal of Protective Structures.
Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & En- gineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers. In 2015, he authored AE-911Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
Reproduced with permission of the authors from Europhysics News
References
[1] NIST: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing (October 2008).
[2] G. Szuladziński and A. Szamboti and R. Johns, International Journal of Protective Structures 4, 117 (2013).
[3] NIST: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (November 20, 2008).
[4] R. Brookman, A Discussion of ‘Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse, Journal of 9/11 Studies (October 2012).
[5] NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (December 1, 2005).
[6] NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investi- gation (Updated September 19, 2011).
[7] Z. Bažant, Y. Zhou, Yong, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128, 2 (2002).
[8] A. Szamboti and G. MacQueen, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refu- tation of the NIST-Bažant Collapse Hypothesis, Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009).
[9] D. Chandler, The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics, Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010).
[10] A. Szamboti and R. Johns, ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses, Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014).
[11] J.-L. Le and Z. Bažant, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 137, 82 (2011).
[12] S. Jones, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse Completely? Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2006).
[13] N. Harrit et al., Open Chemical Physics Journal (April 2009).
[14] G. MacQueen, Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers, Chapter Eight, The 9/11 Toronto Report, Editor: James Gourley (November 2012).
[15] Fire Department of New York (FDNY): World Trade Center Task Force Interviews, The New York Times (October 2001 to January 2002).
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Dedicated to people like “Sophie – Admin” – whoever she may be…
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2021/09/11/what-researching-911-taught-me-about-life-the-universe-and-everything/
Please read my 2 free books – which are primarily about lying liars – like Sophie Admin
You’re welcome to allege people are lying, but you do have to be specific and cite evidence.
Calling me (or anyone) a liar and “supporting” this accusation with nothing more than a non-specific link to some obscure web page is just more of the same smoke blowing nonsense we have already seen.
A minimum of scholarly rigor requires you at least specify what you claim to be lies and then link directly to factual support for your allegation.
Such fact-free handwaving and generalised grade school ad hom might be de rigeur in Judy Wood’s milieu but we do things differently here.
Have you checked out Sophie admin’s other posts? She comes over mostly as a twenty-something brain-dead Valley Girl. No way she composed those comments about Dr Judy Wood. If you want my opinion Steve “Los Alamos” Jones or Richard “scam-artist” Gage has been ghosting stuff for the admin to post.
Most people I know who believe the official story don’t think the towers came down due to fires. They think the buildings came down due to being struck by aircraft and by fires. This seems reasonable to them. If you push them they mention that old fraud Occam’s Razor. Of course, for them, Occam’s Razor applies only to the whole event and not to the details. So a million impossible details can add up to one possible and official scenario. It’s pointless to argue. Like the JFK assassination it has become a rationality test. If you believe, you’re sound. If you don’t believe, you’re unhinged. It doesn’t help that most of us unbelievers cut our own hair, if we have any.
What complete and other horse feces. Loons!
Sure, whereas normal, sane people believe what they’re told to believe, even if it contradicts their own eyes. Or so it seems 🙄 😅 A2
too much omega feces cloggin your sorry murderous bot troll latrine sport
i enjoy watching demolition videos. i have watched thousands of them from all over the world, done by hundreds of companies.
every video i have watched has used a bottom up demo method. every. single. one.
i have NEVER watched a video that has used a top down demo method, as described by the 9-11 insider community. NEVER.
if the twin towers were in fact brought down this way, it is the only time in history that this method has been used.
and, yes, fuel can cause structural failure. a few years after 9-11, a fuel tanker caught fire and burned on a california highway over pass. as a result of the fire, the over pass collapsed, due to fire induced structural failure, something the 9-11 insider community says can’t happen.
Were any of the thousands of demolition videos attempting to effect the appearance of something other than demolition having caused the collapse? I suspect not.
Isn’t it possible that a scenario different from run-of-the-mill building demolition might require a completely different demolition strategy?
Are you saying a top-down instead of a bottom-up demolition won’t work? How would anyone know if it’s never been attempted?
The fall of the building doesn’t tell the whole story; how it all lands must be considered as well.
Bear in mind, too, that no fuel was involved in the destruction of Building 7. Yet it fell.
Also, are you referring to the fuel tanker fire at Montebello from 2011? or the one at Fremont in 2007? The latter definitely caused far greater damage. Someone should do a study to determine which – overpass or high rise – is structurally sturdier and therefore more resistant to fire damage. Generally speaking, it is not expected that fire would become an issue on a freeway – certainly not the way it could in a high rise.
9/11 brought The Patriot Act so the government could spy on their people….it was an inside job…
Only a brainless blind moron can’t see a perfectly staged demolition when they see it.
Think Al-Qaeda.
Arid background. A bunch of guys as scraggly as the trees, disheveled appearance, soiled clothes. Rifles slung over their shoulders. Maybe holding a severed head.
And we’re supposed to believe these guys brought down three skyscrapers the same day in lower Manhattan.
malvernthenovel.com
It wasn’t a controlled demolition. The buildings practically evaporated, and there were no earth tremors, no p and s ware. The only logical and most comprehensive explanation is provided by Dr Judy Wood. “Where did the towers go?…” published 12 years ago. Lectures even available on YouTube.
Judy Wood is a disinfo agent, same as the mini-nuke bullshitters.
This has already been answered by another commenter who provided photos of the very obviously non-evaporated rubble. There was a seismic signal. Though some argue it was not strong enough to indicate the towers collapsing.
Of course there was some residual rubble, some aluminium cladding, some steel girders that were curled and twisted like spaghetti (immediately shipped off to China), but not the millions of tone of concrete and steel to cause the colossal thump if the 2 towers and other five buildings had collapsed in any way. There would have been a gargantuan mountain of rubble and the Lower Manhattan Bathtub would have definitely flooded, but it didn’t happen. The actual word Dr Judy Wood uses is “dustification”, call it what you will, but her explanation holds water (pardon the pun) and is very comprehensive, based on all the available evidence, lots of it, including the sudden hurricane deflection and the seismic readings. Her full explanation is freely available on the internet and her book was published over a decade ago.
How much rubble was there in total?
How much ought there to have been if the buildings were not “dustified”?
What is the deficit?
Does Wood provide this data anywhere? Can you?
The debris pile was half as tall as the one from WTC7 according to Phil Jayhan & Larry McWilliams. The most simple explanation is there was nothing in the towers:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LP9GLrld7J5j/
The debris pile occupied several of the basement layers as well as above ground. Debris was also hurled over a wide area around the footprint by the force of the blast, while the concrete was turned to powder and ended up falling over a great deal of the Financial District.
All these factors need to be considered when calculating whether any of the towers are actually “missing”.
We are not clear if Wood or her supporters have ever done such calculations
Sorry you are wrong, live film only hours after show no debris in the basements below the towers.
Ridiculous statement close to basic heckling. Please, describe how live camera footage can view underground and, what’s more, please link to this footage! 😀
If you can’t, please take this as a prompt to do better in future. Thank you. A2
The footage is in the Judy Wood presentation (among other places), you know, the one you claim shows nothing.
Never claimed that, as you know. I said don’t get others to do your leg work. Are you an adherent of Judy Wood or not? Please give specific, relevant, quality links for your claims or it’s potentially misleading for our readers. And we owe our readers more than that. Please do your due diligence or kindly sit down, before some other commenter accuses you of vacuous trolling. Life is short.
In this case we’re only talking about providing some time stamps to the relevant portions of the video you posted. I feel you could’ve done it in this time if you weren’t so busy arguing lol
Thanks Jozef! A2
I appreciate that some people, e.g. Americans, are said to have a very short attention span, but Dr Wood is an American and caters for such audiences in her talks. Then again so as to avoid sceptical admin people having to do any unnecessary leg work, she gets to to the crux of her thesis in the fourth minute – see how long you can manage. The underground footage comes later, don’t remember exactly where – I’ll have to get back to you on that.
Surely your attention span is the one most under scrutiny here, since you’re insisting I compensate for the lack of yours? XD You’ve already seen the video, presumably, yet you can’t zip through the video you already watched and find some timestamps for our readers?
And even so you’re accusing me of shirking leg work? XD
However you do have time to post spammy, trolly, ad hommy nonsense here? XD
We hope for a better standard of comment than this. Please do better. Thanks. A2
“Ridiculous statement close to basic heckling.”
It was a statement of fact.
“Surely your attention span is the one most under scrutiny here, since you’re insisting I compensate for the lack of yours? XD”
You are behaving just like a Normie Fact Cheka!
Didn’t take you long to look for any reason to toxify the discourse.
“We hope for a better standard of comment than this. Please do better. Thanks. A2”
Practice what you preach, or don’t administrate.
“Toxify the discourse” or ask someone to source what they say… sure, apparently they’re the same 🙄
People need to start citing claims on this issue, or I’m going to close this thread. So let’s not link to long videos without time stamps, or offer ‘gists’ as though they are empirical evidence, or state that calculation estimates on debris exist, and then claim they don’t exist and are impossible to estimate ‘because it’s never happened before’ and continue to use that circular argument as though it were hard evidence.
Had enough of that sort of whiffle during Covid times thanks lol A2
For your readers as you requested, here is a time stamp of one of Wood’s presentations showing no rubble in the basement. A newscast is played saying firemen are in the basements of the trade centers. This is what Jozef is discussing. …..starting at 25:30. Hope this helps! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhqNbjR6_Q
Thanks but that wasn’t what was requested. See above, Sophie’s message.
Has any effort been made to quantify anything rationally in terms of how much rubble would be expected etc…., vs how much there actually was? A2
Yes, in both Judy Wood videos presented in this thread, in her book and in countless other places. It’s very simple. We know that the WTC 110-storey towers had a mass of 500,000 tons individually, so if you assume that they suddenly collapsed from a great height (e.g. by means of a controlled demolition), there should have been a colossal thud, and there should have been a colossal mound, very many storeys high. There can’t be any very precise calculations because something like that never actually happened. But the distinct lack of vast amounts of debris (ever seen a demolished building?) was even noticed with surprise by the mainstream media the following day
We can all agree that all seven WTC buildings were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on September 11, and all the remaining buildings were pretty much intact. This certainly precludes the possibility of any passenger airliners being the cause, I think we can agree on that too. The authors of the above article rightly note that the twin towers were redundant structures, absolutely true, but this leads them to assume that it must have been a controlled demolish – and where exactly is the irrefutable evidence for that? We know that WTC building 6 had to be pulled down with cables for fear of a controlled demolition damaging the Lower Manhattan infrastructure, the dykes. Yet we are led to believe that two 110-storey towers “collapsed” and no damage whatsoever was done to the Lower Manhattan bathtub or even to the subway? And I repeat after the late Peter Jennings, where did all the rubble go?
But of course if you want a full and proper explanation, listen to one of Judy Wood’s presentations. She’ll also explain the sounds of explosions and the squibs. I’m not her adherent, I don’t know anything other than that she’s a former professor of mechanical engineering who has become very expert at explaining the physics behind the destruction of seven WCT buildings, including two massively redundant 110-storey towers.
I also know something about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (the authors of the above article). I know that they appeared slightly later than Judy Wood and I can assume why they appeared. Yeah, we’re all truthers, aren’t we?
We know the buildings were brought down by unconventional means (that almost certainly doesn’t include an airliner impact!). However, the observations of news reporters on the ground, although helpful potentially, is not really hard science. They are news reporters, not structural engineers. Given all the effort that has been made to conduct serious Scientific research into the events of 9/11, including publishing papers et cetera, if this layman’s testimony really is central to the Judy W hypothesis (which it appears to be from what I’ve gathered here), then I think it warrants a less passionate, more circumspect reaction than I’ve seen here today.
Yes, it may be curious, or maybe not. Surely effort needs to be made to shine some scientific, rational, quantifiable light on this?
The debris was falling from a great height and seemed to explode outwards far more energetically than you would expect were it an unenergetic building collapse. Most people agree on this.
Taking the 500 ton estimate, and comparing that to the height of the buildings and the estimated energy and trajectory of their disintegration, it should be possible to create a distribution diagram illustrating how much debris accumulation one might expect, distributed over what sort of area.
Something like this would be very compelling evidence for Judy Wood’s hypothesis that steel and other debris was turned to dust in some unusual way (energy beams directed from space), rather than as a result of more conventional explosives.
If this HAS been done then please someone link to it. If it has NOT been done yet then the answer to Sophie’s question above is ’it has not been done yet‘, rather than ‘here’s a YouTube video giving a gist‘.
Adherents of J Wood always seem to get very passionate and defensive! Shall we try taking it down a notch or two? Or it’s going to shut conversation down completely, and presumably this isn’t what we want?
So, I will close this thread unless we can achieve this, and people can start considerately citing their claims for the benefit of readers who may not be well acquainted with this subject, or at least have the generosity to admit if evidence/research hasn’t been conducted yet. Thank you very much, A2
If we know that each tower had a mass of over 500,000 tons, the debris from the two towers would have been over one million tons. Over one million tons of concrete and steel in a confined space, assuming the towers collapsed vertically (and it couldn’t have been otherwise because the surrounding buildings weren’t’ destroyed), would have been very visible indeed. You wouldn’t have seen that characteristic aluminium cladding jutting up over the debris. There wouldn’t have a dust covered ambulance smack in the centre, and there wouldn’t have been 14 survivors on the second, third or fourth floor. All of this would have been crushed under the colossal pressure, and the slurry walls (the twin towers were right in the middle of the bathtub) would have been breached. This didn’t happen – at least two thirds of those towers vanished into thin (or rather very dusty) air. This can be seen from the visual evidence of September 11 and 12, from the footage (lots of it) and even from the ABC news report, not the idiotic explanation of the reporter, but the sight of ground zero the following day – that was not over million tons.
You need to take a closer look at a controlled demolition. A rapid succession of very loud explosions. The structure cracks up into large chunks, then falls to the ground with a colossal thud and only then does the dust rise from the ground. The destruction of the two towers looks completely different. They seemed to be frothing up at the top. Most telling of all is the image of a massive core column, still standing sixty or seventy metres high, very rapidly become hazy and disintegrate into dust. The evidence is in the photographs and the footage, which is corroborated by witness accounts. But the primary evidence is in the actual footage. I really don’t know where the calculations come in – yeah computer models have made a wonderful career in “science” – don’t we all know it.
Judy Wood’s observations are not theoretical, she does not propose any particular theory. She empirically concludes that on awful lot of energy must have been used, but she doesn’t specify how it was delivered because she doesn’t know. Conventional explosives are not considered because they would not have produced the observed effects, they would not have caused the atomic disintegration of steel and concrete. Then again, I don’t know if your experts can explain how all these conventional explosives would have been planted?
The towers weren’t a typical demolition in that it was a top-down rather than bottom-up series of timed structural breaches. According to video evidence and according to various architects and engineers. This top-down demolition (whatever the mechanism) could account for differences in dust behaviour and needs to be ruled out and accounted for. The towers did fall downwards, as video evidence testifies, in near free-fall speeds, and there were seismic readings.
Whether you want to debate specifics or energy rays or not you still need to account for the physical behaviour observed, as Judy herself is always saying.
Saying the damage isn’t consistent with explosives alone is one thing, and should inspire further discussion, but that should be measured since the absence of a theory is not a theory.
Perhaps some sort of study of rubble, as I intimated above, is not only desirable but necessary.
In any case, be less vociferous if you can. Thanks. A2
Well yes, the destruction was definitely top-down – which effectively rules out the use of chemical explosives – and it was exceedingly fast, and it was exceedingly thorough, which is why there was practically no rubble to speak of, just an awful lot of dust. Let me qualify that: there were some bizarrely deformed steel segments of the perimeter column (hastily shipped off to China), some aluminium cladding from the bottom of the towers and a lot of paper, but no other evidence that minutes earlier there had been many offices there. Cars were bursting into flames, their engines were melting, but green leaves remained on the trees and the paper wasn’t burning.
The smoke and flames emanating from the towers when they were still standing was also weird. People (office workers) appeared in the hole supposedly made by the plane. Much higher up, where there was no smoke and flames, people were complaining that they were burning. They felt the need to exit the building from the outside, that is they clung to the window ledges as long as they could, and then fell (I won’t go on, but it’s relevant evidence).
On the ground, Judy Wood points to characteristic, circular holes, in windowpanes of adjacent building, and huge hole in the centre of building 6, IIRC. Then again the above article at one point argues that explosives could have destroyed the “interior columns” first, thus causing a sort of “implosion”. This certainly did not happen in the case of the towers because video evidence shows that the core column was the last thing that was momentarily left standing, until it too turned into dust.
I repeat, there were seismic signals, but these were only surface waves.
Judy Wood’s conclusion is sensible, rational and empirical, based on all the available evidence. She says that the above events have also been seen in what is commonly called the Hutchinson effect – a series of recordings from the 80s or early 90s of steel bars bending, turning into dust, a thick piece of iron appear to crumple and emit smoke, etc. Effects apparently caused by using high-frequency radio waves from decommission naval radar equipment. Hutchinson is an obvious crank and it is now claimed that he is unable to replicate these effects. But in fact they were replicated even before him. Directed-energy weapons are nothing new. They’ve been applied by the military and police for decades, they’re currently used in Ukraine. Occam’s razor.
Sorry – anyone who cites the stop-motion movie huckster Hutchinson has lost all credibility.
Why muddy the waters with non existent impossible to implement DEWs when tested and tried mini nukes had existed for over 40 years ? These explain the top down pulverisation perfectly.
If nukes are consistent with energy readings taken from ground zero after the event and now then why not discuss them? However, there aren’t many architects, engineers or scientists willing to give much credence to this as far as I know. That’s not to say it isn’t worth discussing, but it needs to match up with the evidence available to us. Interesting nonetheless. A2
Tritium was apparently found on the site. Judy Wood talks about it. How it came to be there I honestly don’t know, but a “mini nuke” is just a small nuclear bomb – nah, that wasn’t it.
There was nowhere near enough tritium for it to have been caused by a nuke. There are many other potential causes.
Take care Jozef, you’ll get dragged off sideways into discussions about the Tunguska event and crop circles ! Not necessary – there’s quite enough material central to dustification without dissipating your efforts. 🙂
This is a weird non sequitur lol. Crop circles? Are you trying to label admin here as flakey, while your fellow adherent is claiming the scientific method is overrated? lololol
To answer you directly, this Admin has not seen any material ‘central’ to ‘dustification’ (I applaud how carefully you word this, avoiding any language linked to evidence-based reasoning).
But thank you for the tacit acknowledgment that your fellow adherent should indeed stop digging a hole for themselves.
A2
Oh come on please.
Has Wood done the calculations or not?
Much of the concrete and a good portion of the steel was blasted out of the footprint over a wide area.
Has Wood estimated the surface area covered by the debris?
Has she got a figure for the total?
Has she got a figure for the deficit?
This is a bare minimum of real science. If she can’t produce it then her work fails at the first hurdle.
If you look at photographs or videos of ground zero on 9/11 or the following day, you’ll see that it is not a million tons. Maybe a couple of hundred tons, but not a million, or even much more if the mass of all the destroyed buildings is taken into account. We know that the total mass of the twin towers was over a million tons (Dr Wood also states it in her talks), but we can only estimate how much of the towers vanished into dusty air. Say, two thirds, would that make you happy? There’s no scientific way of providing an exact figure, but it’s patently obvious that most of the two towers was gone.
And please read my posts more carefully, I never said I thought there was any nuclear device.
Some slight of hand in your posts.
– “Hutchinson’s Effect”, named after an ‘obvious crank’ who many claim is “unable to replicate these effects”, but in fact they were replicated even before him?! It’s clear you are bandying the word ‘replicated’ around regardless of its meaning. Do you mean Hutchinson was replicating the work of others? In which case A: who were these forerunners and B: why isn’t the effect named after them instead? lol
– Has anyone replicated this effect to date? I think we both know the answer to that. Is Wood really expected to be taken seriously citing a ‘crank’?
– The videos presented by Wood purportedly showing intact basement levels are in fact beneath WTC4/5, on the periphery of the WTC complex. Not beneath the twin towers.
– your Initial video link, which you were so reluctant to provide timestamps for, is in fact a compilation of unsourced, poorly defined, subjective speculation mixed with unprofessional personal attacks on leading AE911Truth scientists, involving intercutting footage of them with images of animal faeces. And yet you expect to be taken seriously with this literal shit?
The hubris 😆
– (addition) a top down demolition in no way rules out chemical explosives! Where did that come from!? That’s just a silly thing to say XD
Further, I’ve seen no attempt from Wood to scientifically demonstrate her theories in any quantifiable way, like modelling/calculating the amount of debris we should expect to see, for example. Rather, I’ve seen a stew of decontextualised information, non-expert testimony and hearsay.
There clearly were odd elements to the events of that day, in need of investigation, and maybe Wood is picking up on some inconsistencies that require further examination, but the scholarly/scientific quality isn’t there and the overall effect has been to obfuscate and seed division in the 9/11 truth community (and here). That, in this admin’s eyes, makes the whole thing seem suspicious. A2
The video that I actually wanted you to see (but failed to find at the time) was later kindly provided by Mitch H, see above. Here it is again
And here is a timestamp, to explain what I meant about “previous replications”: 1:28:22 – Proof of concept (section 14).
Yes, John Hutchison was trying to replicate the experiments of Nikola Tesla and obtained some noteworthy results, so much so that military got interested, at one point a colonel was assigned to him IRRC, and has since been pigeonholed in RationalWiki as a crazy fraudster whose experiments “cannot be replicated”. Yes, he is a bit crazy, I don’t think he’s actually invented anything and he isn’t a scientist (doesn’t even claim to be), but I have no reason to believe his recorded experiments are fraudulent (I’d like to see the evidence of how he could have faked all of them), especially because the same effects have been achieved before and since, and are also observable in nature (e.g. hurricanes and tornadoes) . And I’ll add that he is probably so famous for recording so many of these effects on film.
At 1:28:22, Judy Wood presents all the phenomena observed at WTC 9/11 (see the whole video) and also appearing in Hutchison’s recorded experiments – that’s why she devotes so much time to him. I didn’t previously mention levitation, but it was also observed at WCT 9/11 with regard to people and vehicles (interestingly, the upturned cars didn’t get “toasted”) and such phenomena were produced in the experiments and work of many others before Hutchison, Wood mentions George Piggott (electro-gravitation), Thomas Townsend Brown (electrogravitics), Edward Leedskalnin (single-handedly built Coral Castle out of 15-ton blocks of coral stone and developed theories on magnetism) all long before Hutchison. You might have also heard of the Philadelphia Experiment, aside from the aliens nonsense, the experiments also concerned the effects of electromagnetism. Few have a grasp of electromagnetism like Charles Proteus Steinmetz or Tesla, but even they didn’t claim to fully understand it. The previous section, 13. Magnetic, is also very relevant – the Earth’s magnetic pole readings from the destruction of WTC tower 2 to the afternoon destruction of building 7.
But you should really watch the whole 2-hour presentation before you can pass any judgement. She covers many disparate topics because many disparate phenomena occurred on that day, e.g. dissimilar materials merging, zinc and copper coins fused together despite very different melting points. On account of the fairly significant presence of tritium despite the absence of any ionizing radiation, she talks a lot about cold fusion. The experiments of electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons are replicable even if they go against the paradigm, but, oh so characteristically, they were dismissed by the scientific “community” . And who should have taken the initiative in poo-pooing this scientific breakthrough by two highly qualified and experienced chemists if not Steven E. Jones, the leading author of the above AE911Truth article.
You should watch the whole presentation because at the very start you’d see Dr Wood explain the scientific procedure. Before doing any calculations or devising any numerical models , you need to determine all the relevant factors, in this case, what actually happened. This includes the most obvious or monumental factors, the buildings vanishing or rather turning into dust, but also the gruesome topic of the “jumpers”, the weird fires, the twisted and curled perimeter columns and girders as well as the minutiae, such as the cold melted coins or tritium. All of these need to be taken into account and explained before you even start thinking about a computer model.
And Dr Wood’s presentations only concern this first stage of scientific investigation. Nowhere else have I found such a comprehensive and thorough report on what actually happened that day. The above article certainly doesn’t hold a candle to it. Instead the authors immediately present calculations, a computer model and hypothesise about shaped charges without any convincing proof.
So, dear Admin, please stop accusing others of being dishonest, using sleight of hand, blowing smoke or being a huckster. History has shown that scientific debates are never very polite to say the least and what really muddies them is the consensus mentality. What on earth do you mean by the “truth community”? Sounds like a sect. Also please remember that it is only thanks to “scientific” consensus (“97% of all scientists”), calculations and computer models that we can revel all this climate change and “pandemic” hysteria.
This is nonsense.
The first thing Wood needed to do was demonstrate with calculations the absence of debris. – She failed to do this.
The second thing Wood needed to do was develop an hypothesis for how this alleged absence might have been achieved by a DEW weapon and then attempt to disprove it with data. – She failed to do this.
In place of these rudimentary applications of basic scientific method she supplemented a rambling, incoherent, fact-lite and inference-heavy photo-essay aimed at non-scientists and the foolish, and charged them $50.000 to read it!
But then what can you expect from a “mechanical engineer” who apparently does not understand that molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight, and tries to “disprove” this well known fact with a photo of molten iron!
I note you are employing a similar methodology.
On the contrary. What is nonsensical is your line of “reasoning”. Repeating like a broken record that science is about demonstrating everything with calculations. “Mark is not in the room.” “Have you done calculations to prove it?” “The towers are gone.” “Have you got a computer model and calculations to demonstrate it?” How much debris is missing? Have you ever looked at a photograph of ground zero to see? Can you spot any elements of the outer perimeter columns ? Remember that the outer perimeter columns went all the way around the towers and all the way up, some 416 metres . So how many segments can you see? Five, twenty, thirty? So where are the rest? Where are the rest of the outer perimeter columns? The vast majority of them? Do you need calculations to see that they are missing? How many elements of office furniture can you spot? Bits of chairs, tables, computers, photocopiers? Shiny bits of white ceramic from the “bathrooms”? None? Do you need a calculator to prove that?
If you have a problem with spotting coherence, you probably also have a problem with comprehension. If available, a picture (i.e. photograph) can tell a thousand words and infinitely more calculations. If you don’t factor everything in, calculations are worthless. But no, you feel Dr Wood should have started with a falsifiable hypothesis predicated on lots of calculations – and a computer model. Well, that’s your opinion.
This literally could be satire.
(moved to on-topic thread by admin)
There’s nothing wrong with the above article in its critique of the NIST and other unconvincing attempts to explain the destruction of WCT buildings. That’s what this article mainly does, and it only very generally suggests that buildings are normally demolished by means of explosives, the most efficient of which is the shaped charge.
So far so true, but the lie comes in the conclusion.
“the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”
What evidence? Please pinpoint where in the above article this “overwhelming evidence” is presented.
The article correctly argues that the other investigations do not explain why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections when we know that the descent was a virtual free fall. But would a controlled demolition using shaped charges make any difference? Would all the charges have had to have exploded top-down within 8 or 9 seconds? That wouldn’t have even been a very rapid succession of explosions. That would have been heard as one colossal detonation.
And to demolish such colossal structures a colossal amount of explosives would have to have been used. Where is the chemical evidence for that?
I’ll add, as far as I know, shaped charges do not actually pulverise anything, at least they don’t produce such inordinate amounts of dust as were actually witnessed.
The authors admittedly protect themselves by saying: “Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.”
But it’s quite pathetic really. They posit a ridiculous hypothesis and then expect others to prove it?
In her presentations, Dr Judy Wood, on the other hand, looks at all the available evidence, and there is an awful lot of it, especially in the form of videos and photographs, but not only. The videos are below, the longer one is better, and you have to watch all of it to understand why she comes to the conclusion that she does.
Suffice to say that there is overwhelming evidence that the twin towers didn’t collapse. They were destroyed, but they didn’t slam to the ground, they turned into dust. How else would 14 people in stairwell B of the north tower have survived?
Please consider the kinetic impact of over 500.000 tons of the concrete and steel of one of the towers crashing to the ground at free-fall velocity. It didn’t happen.
Suffice to say that electromagnetic forces were at play. The weird fires that failed to burn paper. The steel toecaps of firefighters “melting”, but no cases of burned feet. Or the suddenly corroded cars and girders. The Bankers Trust building had to be dismantled later because of its corroded steel structure. Corrosion is an electrochemical process.
Yes, the amount of rubble left after a normal building collapse is 12-15% of the original height.
Don’t wriggle. That’s not the question asked and you know it.
Did Wood calculate the amount of debris present in the visible pile PLUS in the upper basement levels, PLUS in the debris field surrounding the towers where a great deal of material had been ejected?
Did she calculate the likely volume of the dust that settled over much of lower Manhattan?
Did she provide figures for the alleged deficit – ie how much of the towers were simply not there?
You and your friends can keep turning up here and failing to answer this simple question for as long as you like, but it doesn’t enhance your overall credibility.
Here’s a link to video of the firefighters walking through the basement, paintwork still intact, no rubble
https://youtu.be/EjhqNbjR6_Q?t=1614
What level and under which building? I have seen people trying to pass off images of the basements under 4 and 5 as being of 1 and 2.
Having watched that part of the video, that is exactly what has been done. It is the basement under four and five
as requested
Seriously? A 1-hr video you expect me to plow through just to get a basic answer that ought to be the first and most important thing she discusses?
Please at least point to a time stamp where these fundamental calculations appear. Better still, simply reproduce the numbers she uses right here.
Failure to do either of these will be regarded as smoke-blowing.
Which calculations? Which timestamps? Most of the footage and photographs are of exactly when the events unfolded. Dr. Wood’s arguments are logical and lucid, and that should be enough for an open-minded person. But if you require even more formal evidence, read the book and the footnotes.
https://archive.org/details/where-did-the-towers-go-eviden-judy-wood/page/498/mode/2up
I do hate when lazy, unsupported assertions are made by people who then basically get you to do their research for them when you ask for a link and they provide nothing more specific than a 1hr video!
You could be entirely mistaken about these calculations appearing in this video. So, since Sophie asked you a specific question, perhaps you’d be kind enough to refresh your memory and go find the location in the video which provides the answer, without wasting anyone’s time? lol
If you are honestly defending Wood’s work this seems only proper, doesn’t it?
And the show notes say nothing specific by the way, which you knew already I’m sure.
Poor show. A2
I’m not being lazy, but the facts speak for themselves. You don’t have to plough through the hour-long presentation to get the gist of Wood’s arguments, the ones which are most pertinent to Sophy’s original questions, as to how much debris was left after the two towers were destroyed (e.g. the view from the 20th floor of the Bankers Trust building), or the actual seismic readings at the time of their destruction, compared with the controlled demolition of the infinitely lower Seattle Kingdome. The latter was registered as a seismic event, but the former wasn’t. The facts speak for themselves, and they are presented in the first five or ten minutes of Wood’s lecture. A five or ten minutes better spent than trying to prove to me that you don’t see them and calling me names.
We have the gist, and no one asked for a gist. 😄 A specific request was made, a specific response was all that was required, then you started this time wasting.
May I take it then, in response to Sophie‘s question, there is no actual data provided in the video, just a gist?
Gotcha. A2
As for blowing smoke, the smoke was black, but the dust was white, and there was much more dust than smoke. Check on any visual evidence you like.,
Okay, so it was a controlled evaporation.
Which doesn’t change the nature of the crime at all.
Jozef, there WERE earth tremors. The rubble was mostly cut by the explosives into convenient-sized pieces so that it could be loaded into trucks. This is the NORMAL way demolition is handled.
An interesting footnote is that the demolition-cut structural steel was loaded into ships & exported to China– so that it couldn’t be examined as part of an investigation. Just another indication that China & US are in cahoots at the top.
—
If I remember correctly it was George Bush’s brother who held a maintenance contract on the towers. They were closed over a weekend for maintenance on the elevators. (really for placement of the demolition charges). Tenants were encouraged to stay away while this work was being done. Besides, who wants to walk up many flights? Apparently one man did– and he saw something incriminating because he was “suicided.” He was the first of the tragic deaths.
5 dancing shlomos.
Mossad/CIA inside job.
A shlomo didn’t agree.
O/T, but thought I’d post this important article.
“400 doctors and professionals declare international medical crisis due to ‘covid’ ‘vaccine’ injuries and deaths”, at:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/10/400-doctors-and-professionals-declare-international-medical-crisis-due-to-covid-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths
What sort of a person would thumb-down the item above…? I think it must be what I term a ‘bot troll’.
We have a little army of trolls who specialize in such behaviour
Some of them are site admin – like Sam.
maybe the same people who’ve been around the block and bored i mean fucking bored with seeing the same old recycled alt media news crap.
400 Doctors wow declare a crisis. booooooooorrrrrrrring. lies.
How come the priest of medical never mentioned the same crisis about the death they sell re: medication. chemo. electro shock. sectioning people. ?
All of a sudden we are lead to believe there priest of whitecoats worried about Bs19 jab and not the 1000’s other of jabs 10.000’s of death meds they whore out daily.
What sort of a person/s believes this type of crap…? Usually funded by the medical mafia plugged to it M.i.c alt media numptys to be flogged to the believers of any old shite.
We’ve got vaxtards out here sometimes. True believers, who feel they MUST come here and enlighten all of us with their wisdom by downvoting a comment and not bothering to make any type of argument why. Ignore them. Some even like to come here and wish a painful death upon us for refusing the magic elixir. Ignore them as well, to put it nicely….
Then there are the others who hate repetition and want all of us to stop bothering to attempt to debunk the covid nonsense without even bothering to think that maybe we share all the information here so that one of us might use something that resonates with the true believers in our real lives. Since they’ve already read all the information, they see no point in repeating it and love to tell the rest of us who do what assholes WE are for continuing to try. Ignore them too.
Thanks, Christine. Nothing’s more important than stopping the killing.
It’s heartening to see people taking action.
Penelope, I’ve just been alerted to the existence of the following 2-hour video. It features the Indian doctors who created the item which I posted above, yesterday (“400 doctors and professionals… etc”.).
As people commenting underneath this video state, the audio is not that good. But if you activate the captions, what they say is easier to follow.
N.B., “UHO’ in the video’s title stands for ‘Universal Health Organization’.
“UHO Doctors’ Conference” (video: 2.06.03 hours), at:
Every false flag needs a patsy. The patsy is needed as an evil villain to direct one’s fear and hatred away from the actual perps, and also as a vehicle to explain how the villain(s) carried out the atrocity. With the Jack Kennedy hit we have Lee Harvey Oswald, who shouted out to the world on live television that he was a patsy, shortly before he was murdered, once again on live television by his acquaintance, Jack Ruby. But the how it was done official narrative cannot stand up to critical analysis, particularly to open minded people schooled in the physical sciences. Thus we have the “magic” bullet theory.
With 9/11 we have multiple patsies, the purported 17 highjackers, most of whom were invented out of thin air from a list of common Islamic names, and then an even more implausible narrative of the mechanics of the event than even the JFK hit, as the article above denotes.
And now we have the covid-1984 false flag. This is the first one that is based on a non-human patsy, the non-existent SARS-CoV-2 virus. A great leap forward in conspiracy fact. Being non-human, the emotional reaction has been based on fear rather than anger, as it is rather difficult to hate a nano particle measuring about 150 nanometers in diameter. However, its artists’ depiction as multicolored WW2 style naval mines primed to explode in one’s lungs, is a nice touch to promote fear. It is once again a total fabrication as anyone familiar with how optical wavelength light behaves in tiny quantum environments. However, the how it was done official narrative is even more implausible than the JFK hit and the 9/11 hit. But a certain understanding of either chemistry or molecular biology is necessary to grasp just what a load of bollocks this narrative is as well.
You sure it is the first? Supposedly the last ‘smallpox virus death’ was on September 11th 1978. The story goes that the death was not in some far flung county with poor sanitation and medical facilities but in Birmingham resulting from a ‘lab leak’.
https://whyy.org/segments/the-tragic-case-of-smallpoxs-final-victim/
This is why, as a sort of homage to the late Lee Harvey Oswald, I refer to the official/accepted narrative perpetrators as the “Nineteen Lone Nuts”. 😎
But all it takes is a few hyperventilating loudmouths running around screaming that the sky is falling for that narrative to take hold.
The virus is real, and is man made. Why is this so hard to accept among truth seekers. Yes you may know physics but biology has skipped you bye. You lose all integrity and the attention of your (sheep) audience if you flat out deny covid was / is real. Their plan failed and the it’s hadn’t the effect of genocide they wanted. It’s like the rest you mention is the truth and we know it so why destroy your truth by spouting pure conspiracy crap it doesn’t help the movement.
“The virus is real, and is man made. Why is this so hard to accept among truth seekers. “
That’s an easy one to answer. As we Yanks would say, tossing softballs. Because it was never properly isolated. Never. Never. If you deconstruct the methodology of all the pseudoscientific ans/or deliberately fraudulent peer reviewed papers claiming its “reality,” you discover that it was never isolated. Never isolated means that the genome cannot be determined. Means the rt-PCR test is bollocks even as Cary Mullis’s ghost screams it’s a misuse of his invention. Means there is no valid science to determine the existence of the notorious spike protein in the virus, though it may well be added to the fake vaccines as a deadly toxicant. Means the idea of continuously generated deviants is ridiculous. So much for even the theory promoting the fake vaccines.
Then we have the methodology of how the fake virus causes covid-1984. Read all the methodology and one discovers that a control experiment to see what happens to these in vitro monkey kidney cells if all the toxic crap is added to them as in the “viral” pathogen test, such as toxic levels of several antibiotics. Real science would demand a rigorous control experiment. That means testing the control group to see exactly what happens to the cells without the addition of lung soup but including all the other toxic shit they added in the primary test. Never happens. Fraudulent pseudoscience.
But to change sport metaphors, I would return your serve. Why is it so fucking important to you to insist that the “virus” is real? Could it be that it is too embarrassing to you, after living a certain amount of time in abject terror, that you were fooled by this duplicitous phantom? The bioengineered theory does nothing to inhibit all the usurpations of our freedom. The fake virus must be that much more lethal as it was deliberately engineered by Ms. Doctor Fu Manchu in Wuhan. The hoax virus theory, besides being true, totally demolishes the threat other than the threat of course, that the elitistas are out to kill most of us off, and put the remainder into the Hunger Games.
It is only present within the confines of the Media/Medical/Military/Political Industrial complex. CoVid1984 was The Coronaprank.
…and it doesn’t matter whether it was man-made or not. Virtually each individual human being has a next to bulletproof immunity system. Virtually impenetrable to seasonal communicable illnesses, as well as being able to neutralize most carcinogens.
So why believe anything else?
Gas lighting the existence of something that still has yet to be isolated from a victim, anywhere in the world. No “Patient Zero” identified(!).
Similar process was initiated in AIDS Research.
You need to read RFKennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci”.
If you are not trolling.
Check – the buildings were taken down by explosives. Who planted them and why? Israel zionists and the neocons, and to create the war OF terror, “Greater Israel” and the “new American century”.
Covid-19. – Fake virus and fake vaccine. Who and why?
21 years later and we’re still debating how the buildings fell down. Sure wish we were debating how to bring the criminal psychopaths to justice. The only thing I can think of that might work is a parallel or separate government of some kind, one that does not recognize the current government(s), and big and powerful enough to challenge the globalists. Citizens committees and action groups aren’t going to do it. Individual court cases aren’t going to do it. Protests aren’t going to do it and it’s way too late for 9/11 protests. Putin isn’t going to do it and neither is Trump. It’s looking like they got away with it. Unless a real opposition can be built, which isn’t out of the question.
But they weren’t, because, fires did not play a significant role in the total structural collapses, whatsoever. That role was played by expertly placed high explosives.
Silent explosives. Nobody outside heard any explosions. It takes hundreds of denotations to take a 40 story building down. And not one large boom was heard. Another thing, even demoed buildings so not drop at free fall. It is physically impossible for a building to drop at free fall speeds.
Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
(Very good sarcasm)
It always seemed likely to me that a self-destruct mechanism would HAVE to be put into such huge buildings to CONTROL an inevitable collapse in the event that the building looked as if it would collapse sideways (tip over) several blocks in any direction. It also seems prudent that such mechanisms, even their existence, would need to be very closely guarded secrets. In other words, explosive charges are just part of the building process in the unlikely event there needs to be a way to control the fall of such massive structures.
Plato’s Cave has always been the method used to mind-control the people.
Preplanned events and wars shock those directly involved, the images of the event are then used to distract, divide & control the majority who where at a distance from the event.
The exit door from this mind-cave is well concealed but until we focus on the bigger picture of finding the way out, ‘events’ will continue to entrap us, especially as digital technology upgrades Plato’s Cave into the Metaverse simulation.
I’ve never seen the amount of 911 coverage that I do today.
Its somewhat bizarre, especially considering that they don’t seem to be censoring much, if any, of the conspiracy explanations.
Must really need a distraction for the people, or something to rile them up.
So, what are they distracting us from?
What,of importance, aren’t they distracting us from?
It must be huge, many concerts were cancelled worldwide. The pope ordered ‘gold’ back to him with a due date, 30th of Sept.
It was also mentioned that the Twin Towers could sustain a plane with full fuel going into the buildings without collapse. And I believe not just a small plane but a larger plane; everything adds up to self-demolition.
I know the planes had full fuel but the structure of the Twin Towers was well maintained and in near excellent shape. What should have happened is the plane goes in, the emergency systems start taking out all the fire, everyone evacuates and they remove the planes then do a few years of repair except maybe the lower floors which could possible have resumed within three years.
If the New World Order is about de-population they were already beginning decades ago hoping they could beginning killing thousands.
Thank God, there is a God. And in my honest opinion their whole new world order plan really is a sham, it’s laughable. Sure it’s destructive and the effects of it when it’s over will take an awful long time to fix, unless it’s done fast especially in the West (USA+Canada) but otherwise it won’t go fast. As for killing millions of people, we are doing that ourselves quite well without any New World Order which we are all living and have been living most or all of our lives mixed in with socialism and the Nazi un-complete missions from World War II.
Look at Society, just really Analyze everything you’ve been told and read. Analyze the lies. Then the removal of God and the Crucifix. And if that doesn’t tell you somewhat the decay of Society, then ask God to show you so you can understand it.
10 million a year die of preventable starvation.
Nary a finger raised, but circuses entertain.
One of the worst false flag attacks the US has ever seen.
Happy building 7 day folks.
https://imgflip.com/i/3a1ocp
https://www.globalresearch.ca/911-21-years-later-a-renowned-architect-and-cia-whistleblower-contradict-the-official-story/5793025
“The day Osama and the Kool-Aid Man got together and attacked America.”
“A day that will live in infamy.”
“A work purportedly from the Epstein-Maxwell Outsider Art Collection”
“Now where is the one of Dubya snorting a line of coke while gulping down a bag of pork rinds?”
Top secret CIA declassified Operation Northwoods.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=VuYzVUlpmqo&feature=emb_logo
The great Steven Jones called this one 21 years ago. Then GW Bush went to visit the Mormon elders and they silenced Jones. Until America embraces the truth of 9/11, we will continue to be enslaved by it. The wicked Patriot Act (still used to spy upon and oppress Americans), the useless, immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the militarization of cops, the evil DHS ALL are the real and intended consequences of this greatest of crimes. Yes, until we embrace the truth of 9/11, America shall remain enslaved by it.
American civilians enjoy their roles as dupes, slaves, and mercenaries. The (still existent) Patriot Act is an excellent example…
It’s less important to know how they did it than why they did it although I assume most people here know the answer to that. However, as this is an article about what happened I find it pertinent to mention the evidence the people who wrote this article always ignore. Such as where did the towers go? Most of the material turned to fine-grained dust. They found no chairs, tables, desks, or metal objects in the rubble. There were reports of people being hurled into the air by an unseen force. Fires broke out across Manhattan after the event, hundreds of yards away from the towers, yet it wasn’t hot in the vicinity of the collapse. No one got burned. The seismic activity was way too minor for two buildings of that size. And whatever happened to the cockpit and voice recorder data from the ‘aircraft’? No one ever mentions that either. In a controlled demolition it would definitely be found but not if it were vapourised.
One explanation is that there was no chairs, tables or desks in the towers.
The hollow towers theory:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/73FzGkKm11SX/
Yes, I agree that the towers were prepared for demolition and there were no flight/cockpit recorders found because there were no planes.
– A B767 is 156 ft wide and 159 ft long. It supposedly penetrated the cross-linked 14-in. external steel columns of WTC-2, creating a hole just 106 ft wide across 8 floors. The distance to the massive central columns was 37 feet. Why did we not see 122 ft the plane sticking out, crumpled up, breaking off or broken off?
– Similarly, the hole in WTC-1 was only 125 ft. wide. The distance from there to the central columns is 60 ft. Why did we not see 99 ft the plane stuck outside, crumpled up, breaking off or broken off?
– None of the “crash” videos show (a) crunching, bending, breaking off or ejection (from reaction to the heavy engines or landing gear) of plane parts (b) deceleration (c) the wall being breached
– Resorting to kinetic energy to explain the penetration or destruction evades the fact that this energy should be distributed over the entire fragile plane.
– Photos of the “crash holes” show no plane wreckage.
– Smoke from WTC-1 soon after the crash was white; smoke from jet fuel is black.
– Photos of the WTC-1 “crash hole” show victims at its edge trying to attract attention, i.e, they were not caught in a fire. Fire and smoke came from other nearby floors.
– Resorting to kinetic energy to explain the penetration or destruction evades the fact that this energy should be distributed over the entire fragile plane.
…..
Yes,and the kinetic energy released (in a real impact) would also have been absorbed by, and distributed through the whole building within a split second and would not at all be focussed at the exact point of impact.Plus the fact that those jets have hollow noses….if it were an armourplate piercing missile it would be a different story of course.
Imho,only the heavier,denser material/parts(engines and landing gear) would make superficial damage to the exterior and some bits would have gone through the windows.Most of the plane would have crumpled up/maybe exploded and fell to the street below.
There would also be a large circular pattern of broken windows all around the impact point, which we do not see on any of the film footage.
Think about the thousands of persons involved in this Globelist Terorrest act? And not a peep from anyone, how can this be?
Many have come forward, see James Corbett’s excellent “9/11 Whistlleblowers” documentary: https://www.corbettreport.com/911whistleblowers/
Exactly the same reason as the claim ‘the experts are in agreement on the science’ rolled out during covid was dominant. It couldn’t be further from the truth, but the private-public partnership running our countries have the ability to censor and silence anyone speaking out, or I should say trying to speak out, by preventing any coverage of what they have to say, or by distorting their words and then ridiculing or slandering them. Since 2020 this has been extreme but it became standard behaviour after 9/11.
And since the majority still follow the corporate controlled media religiously they never even get to see or know anything about those views. To them it’s the ‘fake news’ which they have been primed to never believe by a process of constantly parroting the message at them 24/7 from a variety of angles for the past 20+ years which keeps them cocksure determined they will never look at anything non-corporate media has to say.
“On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses” ?…..
How about more discussion/analysis about the physics of how a comparatively weak aluminium tube can go through the steel beams of such a strong massive structure?
September Clues by Simon Shack remains the best ever 9/11 documentary.
……..
https://fakeotube.com/v/31
Simon Shack:
‘This is my original SEPTEMBER CLUES research documentary, first published in 2008. Ten years later, on March 4, 2018, my original “simonshack” YT channel was terminated – no reason given*. My channel contained more than 20 videos exposing the fake imagery shown on TV on September 11, 2001. As my YT channel was inexplicably shut down, SEPTEMBER CLUES had nearly 1 million views.’
To view ALL of my 9/11 research videos, please go to: http://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/
My website: http://septemberclues.info
My research forum: http://cluesforum.info
Hackery is alive and well… A piece of aluminum traveling at 400+ MPH has quite a bit of momentum. Momentum is a force…
That ‘force’ of 60 tons of aluminium would have easily been absorbed by the 100,000+ tons of steel (plus the concrete) Sheets of aluminium will not go through steel girders…unless you’re talking about star trek type speeds, then maybe. Aircraft are flimsy constructions in comparison.
PS: I seem to recall from the official bullshit of that tragic day that the speed of the ‘planes’ was reported as being 600MPH.
Who said they were 60 tons? you are dreaming.
Do some research on the airliners in question.
The airliners that hit the towers were a 767 200ER and 767 200.
767 200ER max takeoff weight is 179000kg that’s 179 tonnes (metric)
767 200 max takeoff weight is 142882kg that’s 140.6 tonnes(metric)
How did you only make them to be only 60 tons (imperial) did Judy Woods, Alex Jones or James Fetzer give you that figure?
No way they would shed nearly 100 tonnes each to get to your figure.
If your figure of 60 tons was correct (which its not) they would have nearly three times more power to their weight so they could theoretically fly a lot faster couldn’t they?
Besides the aircraft did not have fly at “star trek” speeds to cut through anything other than enter the building through the windows as it was just pure theatre for the masses – the excuse for why they collapsed.
I bet those engines with all that titanium could cut through steel girders – the plane just had to smash its way into the building that’s all and produce a Hollywood like explosion of jet fuel. A little while later the buildings were brought down using thermite (nanothermite?) and explosives hence the molten metal and the squibs observed in the stills.
Hackery is indeed alive and well.
Utter gibberish. Obviously no training in physics or engineering. Not much common sense.
‘Who said they were 60 tons? you are dreaming.
Do some research on the airliners in question.’
…..
Not me.I have done some research.
I said 60 tons of aluminium. Then there is the engines at 5 or 6 tons each, then the landing gear (10tons maybe ?)
An empty,operational 767 is around 80 tons.
That explains why a supersonic egg has no problem penetrating a bank safe. Happens all the time.
No high bypass turbofan driven airliner has achieved a speed of 400 mph at sea level.
‘September Clues’ says it all!
Ace Baker’s 911 Psyop is the ultimate truth video.
A long discussion here:
https://www.winterwatch.net/2022/09/roundtable-discussion-of-the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-elements-of-9-11/
Starting to remind me of the JFK assassination.
Too much concentration and focus on the how and never on who and why.
There is no one who, and the why is explained by looking at where we are today. Endless wars, millions killed, countries destroyed, control of resources, open initiation of the surveillance state, most of the populace accepting what can only be described as abject lies and utter bullshit, any questioning of the conventional narrative seen as utter lunacy, the acceptance by the majority of whatever they’re told by the boob tube. There’s lots of reasons why.
Merely by questioning the how one starts to see the why. Power. Control. The psychopaths’ wet dream of getting a majority to believe whatever they’re told, no matter how ridiculous that is. That is why it still matters 21 years later. If enough people started to truly question the how, they’d start to get a glimpse of the reasons why, and our owners do not want that and neither do the majority who want to believe the lie. They want to believe it, because if they start to doubt, that plants a seed that will only grow if they keep thinking about it. Questioning is hard work as well, so most do not want to do that, and they are trained not to do it. Just like the magic bullet theory with JFK – easier to believe that utter idiocy than to question it. JFK was the primer, if you will. Get the public to believe something like that, and you know you can get them to believe ANYTHING. That is true power.
Interesting
It is interesting to compare the real crash of a B25 bomber into the Empire State Building in July 1945 with the alleged crash of “UA 175” into the South Tower, a building I visited in 1995. Both wings of the bomber were sheared off. There are photographs of one of the wings on the street below, badly mangled but identifiable as a B25 wing. Fuel rained onto the street forming flaming puddles and streams. Due to the size of the windows on the ESB, the fuselage entered the building but was stopped by the first beam it encountered. All the beams involved were bent. Fragile alclad airframes are consructed of 1 mm thick sheet and cannot shear slots in massive structural steel columns and beams.The tail of the aircraft protruded from the building and was photographed. A writer said that the front of the bomber was crushed by the first beam it encountered “like an egg crate”. The fires were put out quickly and the building stands to the present day.
Contrast this with the ghostlike non Newtonian undamaged entry of “UA 175” into the South Tower with it’s massive steel exoskeleton. The idea that a plane can cut plane shaped slots in solid steel and vanish into those slots takes absurdity to new levels.
it takes months to wire a building for demolition and steel girders have to be exposed – miles of cables linking explosives- amazing they were able to do this with the daily use of the building and thousands of workers not noticing.
There are many reports of extensive work being done on the towers in the months preceding 9/11.
When (approx. 10+ years ago) I was reading a lot of books on the 9/11 horror, I recall reading the claim that the Twin Towers had been (‘oddly’) closed for the weekend prior to 11th September 2001. Implying (rightly or wrongly) that the wiring had been done at that time.
However, if you say that such wiring would take months, then what I’ve said above would not be feasible.
But to put the final touches on, to check all that wiring to make sure it would work, that might be the reason for the weekend closure. I had read about the building work going on for months as well and from what little I now know about controlled demo, that makes perfect sense. But that doesn’t preclude one last check to make sure all was a go by closing off the buildings, not at all.
“The servant must clear my desk for me. I can’t be expected to move things.”
https://twitter.com/BBCLauraKT/status/1568571047892459523
Man of the people.
C.U.N.T.
In the plural, please.
👍
Oh well, it could have been worse.
“Off with their heads!!” back in the good old days.
Sometimes old fashions come back…
Old big ears has three dressers, the lazy git can’t even be bothered to dress himself lol.
More than likely has someone to wipe it’s arse as well!
You don’t keep a dog & bark
Just look at them…
He: “You, insect, run about a lot, and do more things that make me look like an important ruler”
She: “Oh, Charles, you promised you wouldn’t behave like Louis XVIth when you became king. How secure do you think this sort of behaviour makes me feel…?”
I have occasionally disagreed with Jordan Peterson, but have also generally found him to be an indispensibly forthright champion of common sense.
What he had to say about this event, however, really made me think he is losing his marbles.
He showed naivety, sentimentality and actually gave some false information, as if carried away by his own whirlwind of fame.
I agree largely with his assessment of Elizabeth as a person, but his fawning praise of the British monarchic system as it is right now shows him to be stuck in 1850, or thereabouts…
Perhaps he wants Charles to give him a knighthood…?
https://youtu.be/_5os9bT9zuo
They know we know what happened.
“We” are of no concern to them because they have convinced the masses that we are loons.
The flat earth and lizard people supporters provide a strong enough strawman argument for any idea differing with the narrative to be easily dismissed.
Even when there is forensic evidence.
It’s a funny old world.
yurp!
“Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise”.
I’m not sure when this was written but it’s no longer the official version. A Sao Paulo skyscraper “collapsed from fire” in 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwoBRHDLxdo
There’s nothing fishy about this of course – like the building being conveniently disused or that it happened on Walpurgis Night. Not a few things have happened on April 30th-May 1st, the most significant date in the Occult calendar (for example, Hitler supposedly shot himself on April 30th Finding the precise time of that ‘event’ is covered by much obfuscation but it seems to have been…. 3.30!).
the important factors are not that it was carried out, but in how long before it was planned and the relevance in terms of symbolism, esoterics, occultism
9/11 was preceded by a ritual cull of animals, foot and mouth in uk (6 million, where have you heard that number before?)
fmd timeline here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1760785.stm
“covid” was preceded by an animal cull in Australia
even a basic study of freemasonry shows how this on going situation has been pre-planned for many hundreds of years
further study into templars points to how this has been ongoing for nearly a millenia
what we know of the babylon mystery school suggests this has been ongoing for multiple millenia
trying to grasp the sheer scale is at times impossible, becuase to truly do so requires removing oneself from a humanistic perception and embracing “evil” in its fullest form, not that this has stopped those invested in this
taken in perspective we feel truly out-gunned and way, way out of our depth
yet ultimately we do have power to stop this, frequency, vibration, code this is how “god” speaks to us, binary, simplicity, light / dark
the weapons they use against us become obvious, tv, fast food, pharma, radio frequency etc and now the game is upped as they combine 5g, jabz and information over-load
yet, tis they who are unable to stop the tsunami of awakening
gently, reasonably and kindly awakening those who stir in their slumber is our purpose, kindling the tiny flame when the penny drops
the evidence points to this being nothing new in our lengthy and much hidden history, it also points to previous re-sets being used in an attempt to stop the innevitable, successful to a degree, but the spark never dies :0)
at least you can say you were on the right side of history, which may or not be some comfort as we approach the shitfest about to be served up come october :0/
Timelines are questionable.
Look up the Fra Mauro 1450 world map. Wikipedia has an image. Click it and select details. That will link you to a 5000×5000 image of the map.
Then, look at Europe, Africa and Russia. They’re littered with castles and settlements.
Then, look for the same in Rome.
The official NIST explanation translates the cause of WT7’s destruction as due to “Magic”
since it’s worked so well before
After years as a believer in Con-911 (Osama done it) I was converted by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. And I read them because a Truther website, Saker of the Vineyard, said he too had been a Believer but AE911 had convinced him of the Truth.
“Science advances slowly, slowly,
Creeping on from point to point”.
The mills of science grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine. Godstrewth.
Like the science of astronomy, 2000 years after Aristarchos of Samos had proved the Earth moves around the Sun, scientists were still being persecuted by governments and execrated by sheeple.
“Eppur si muove”.