Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Anyone who doubts that the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are dead serious about exposing 9/11 truth hasn't been paying attention.

It gets dicey for the government and its backers when scientists get involved. That's because science is a strict taskmaster. You can bull shit a lot of people, often easily, but not so much with scientists. That's because they're scientists. And, scientists are not inclined to attach their name to something they know is bull shit.

Here is the BBC reporter announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it collapsed.

That was what she said: "The 47 story Saloman Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed." The arrow is pointing to it on the right.

When, after a multi-year delay, NIST finally released its report on the collapse of Building 7 (which was never hit by a plane) they said it collapsed due to "office fires." Burning furniture and such. The building was never engulfed in flame. Here you see it coming down- like an elevator- and there are no visible fires. 

The notion that "office fires" did that is pretty darn insane. But, when they announced it, there was exactly one guy who took responsibility for it. Not a consortium of engineers and scientists, but one guy: Dr. Shyam Sunder.

Here is the "media briefing" about it. 


He claimed that "debris from Building 1 caused fires on at least 10 floors of the building." The evidence for that? Not provided.

He claimed that the fires "burned out of control" on 6 of these 10 floors. The evidence for that? Not provided.

He said that the team consisted of 50 experts from many disciplines, including "world class experts from the private sector." 

He said that they determined that no explosives were involved. He said that such explosives would have produced very loud sounds that were not recorded or reported by witnesses.

Hmm. Well, here is Fire Marshall Rudy Dent who as there, and he heard a series of explosives, and he saw the molten metal. 


Dr. Sunder admitted that burning fuel was not a factor. Rather, it was the burning of "furnishings."

So, the burning of furnishings caused "thermal expansion" of the supportive steel.  He said that that expansion caused the steel to separate from the concrete floors. And he said that after that, the steel buckled. 

All that from burning furnishings? Are you sure? Because there have been plenty of steel skyscrapers engulfed in flames, and not a single one ever collapsed before.

Not any of those burning buildings, nor have any other tall steel buildings engulfed in flame have ever collapsed due to fire anywhere in the world. So, I'm thinking that Dr. Sunder's theory of what caused Building 7 to fall is utter nonsense. 

Dr. Sunder went on to actually claim that a beam failure on the 13th floor is what initiated the process which cascaded into a global collapse. Hmmm. Since the building and its rubble were long gone, one wonders how he could possibly claim to know that. It was from the computer models. 

So, based on a computer simulation, he actually claimed to know that, that "column 79 was the first to buckle, causing the floors to come down, followed by a quick succession of failures of adjoining columns." 

He called the collapse of Building 7 "a rare event." And he said that their study discovered a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of a structure: thermal expansion.

"For the first time, we have shown that fire can cause a progressive collapse."

Thermal expansion. How long has it been known that steel expands when heated? How long has steel been tested to see how it reacts to the temperatures of building fires and tested for failure? And remember that in this case we are talking about just the temperature that furniture burns. How long has this knowledge about steel expanding from heat been factored into building codes and construction? And most important, how could this not have happened before or since considering how many fires there have been in tall steel-framed buildings?

Why was Dr. Sunder there alone? Why weren't the results presented by a panel of scientists, the ones who were involved? There were dozens of them. Not even the lead author of the report showed up. His name is Richard G. Gann.

Here is the start of AE911's Richard Gage's response to Dr. Sunder:

Dear Dr. Sunder,

We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing – as we now have over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse – that the structure had to have been removed – forcibly – by explosives. (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel – because all of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion.)

That brings us back to Dr. Hulsey.

At the completion of his study, there is going to a press conference, and it will feature him and Richard Gage, and also others from AE911. And, I will tell you ahead of time that they are going to demolish to stupid and ridiculous claims of Suyam Sunder and Richard Gann. And, I don't think there is the slightest doubt in their heads that that is coming. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.