16th Anniversary of 9/11 Brings New Development

19th September 2017 / United States
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg this
16th Anniversary of 9/11 Brings New Development

TruePublica Editor: We’ve steered well clear of the 9/11 story in the past for fear of being branded a conspiracy theorist. However, a week ago it was the 16th anniversary of 9/11, and this November 22 will be the 54th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. Years after the damage done by these events, the American people no longer believe these official stories. In fact, in as little as ten years from 9/11 half of Americans disbelieve the official government story and just as many feel that World Trade Centre Building 7’s collapse was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11 without being hit with anything whatsoever.

As time progresses technology allows evidence to be seen in a different light, other evidence emerges, more witnesses comes forward and more experts speak up. For instance, 2,750 professionally qualified architects and engineers have signed a petition demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 – because – well, they don’t believe the story either.

So now, if you still think a man with a beard, hiding in a cave, suffering from kidney disease, on another continent orchestrated the biggest attack on American soil, then you are now the conspiracy theorist. The following is Dr Paul Craig Robert’s most recent opinion piece on the event that changed the world. This is then followed by a link to yet another expert who has deep knowledge building explsives as he had a New York building explosives licence. It’s interesting to hear his version of the WTC7 building collapse, and he was speaking up a few years ago.

 

Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports - Essential Weekend Reading - Safe Subscribe

From Dr Paul Craig Roberts: Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a distinguished engineering authority presented his team’s preliminary report report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The report is preliminary in the sense that it awaits peer-review, that is, examination by other experts. The team’s research is more extensive than the modelling provided by NIST and includes a thorough examination of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) approach. Dr. Hulsey’s team concludes that Building 7 did not come down due to fire.

Here is the URL to his presentation: HERE

Being a Georgia Tech graduate I can follow the gist of Dr. Hulsey’s presentation. It is a difficult explanation to follow as engineering science is challenging to explain. Moreover, engineers are accustomed to talking to other engineers, not to the general public. At the Georgia Tech of my day, and perhaps still, the administration was determined to produce articulate engineers. Our English courses were writing courses. The English Department took the position that just as one engineering mistake could cause a bridge or building to fail, one spelling or grammatical mistake produced the grade of F on the assignment. (Yes, I know, with all of my typos how did I pass? The answer is that our papers were hand written.) We were also encouraged to join Toastmasters so that we would be capable of standing up before an audience and making a presentation. What I am saying is that Dr. Hulsey is in the difficult position of having to address an audience consisting of professionals and non-professionals, and he probably has limited experience in addressing non-professionals.

Nevertheless, it is possible to grasp that the NIST simulation of the collapse ignored three structural elements that actually existed in the building, and the presence of these structural elements make NIST’s conclusion invalid.

The second part of the study will explain what actually caused the collapse of Building 7. As I understand it, the team is waiting for professional responses to their conclusion that fire was not the reason.

As the report is a scientific presentation, it cannot be branded a conspiracy theory. Therefore, the media will most likely ignore it, especially as they will find it intellectually challenging.

Facts are important to the professionals in the 9/11 truth movement, but are facts equally important to others? The study of Building 7 might have implications that people do not want to face.

 

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth VIDEO

 

 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditDigg this


The European Financial Review

The European Financial Review is the leading financial intelligence magazine read widely by financial experts and the wider business community.