Monday, September 12th, 2016
Stephan: For 15 years I have resisted conspiracy theories about 9/11. Readers have sent me articles, friends the same. But it just seemed too convoluted a plot. With this report, in a major European science publication, I think I must change my views. There are now thousands of engineers, architects, scientists, and builders who have examined this issue in depth. Here are their collective conclusions and I don't think they can be casually dismissed any longer. Something happened that day, and it is not what we think.
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
The Twin Towers on 9/11
On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.
In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Stand ards 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 […]
Welcome aboard, Stephan.
Thank you Steven for finally seeing what others have questioned for years. The truth of really happened, who planned it and how it allowed us to conduct a non-stop period of war and invasion since 2002, is the stuff that causes revolution. But the truth must be known. I also recommend Dr. Judy Wood’s analysis of the collapse of the towers, videos on YouTube and her book, “Where did the towers go?”
to Stephan: now can we talk about some empirical data on “chemtrails”. It hurts my heart to think that you would turn away rather than inspect the evidence respectfully…
I have volunteered with AE911Truth for over 6 years having verified over 6,000 of the “general public” petition supporters. Other volunteers have personally verified the over 2,500 A’s & E’s currently on our petition. I’m heartened that, even though I broached the subject with you from a career firefighter’s point of view, that you found the information on your own and are ready to consider what most are still horrified to even fathom. Cognitive dissonance plays a huge part in getting past our emotions about what is provable from a purely physical and forensic point of view.
Popular theories about what destroyed the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 are:
1 Fires from jet fuel and office materials weakened steel in the upper floors and the buildings collapsed
2 Conventional controlled demolition blew out supports at the base and the buildings collapsed
3 Thermite cut steel columns on virtually every floor and the buildings collapsed
4 Conventional explosives blew the buildings up
5 Mini-nukes blew the buildings up
Theories 1, 2 and 3 rely on gravity to bring the buildings down while the last two blow them up. Popular theories, yes, and dead wrong.
Five facts scientifically documented in Ph.D. engineer Judy Wood’s comprehensive textbook (Where Did The Towers Go?) prove the popular theories false beyond any doubt whatsoever. Yes, I know it’s amazing. Who’d a thunk it’d be this easy?
THE FACTS:
1. DEBRIS: What debris? There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no “pile” or “stack.” Rubble totaled less than a story. It was a football field as a survivor who emerged from Stairwell B, North Tower, exclaimed. No computers, toilets, and only one small piece from one Steelcase file cabinet were found. Some steel and mostly dust remained. Lack of debris on the ground from quarter-mile-high twin towers whispers “no collapse.” See Chapter 9.
2. BATHTUB: A bathtub or slurry wall surrounded 70 feet of WTC subbasements to prevent the Hudson River from flooding the WTC and downtown. If each 500,000-ton tower had slammed into the bathtub in 10 seconds or less, the protective wall would collapse. Did not happen. Upshot? Collapses did not happen. See Chapter 5.
3. SEISMIC IMPACT: “Had the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the ‘collapse,’” writes Dr. Wood. Seismic instruments registered disturbances far too short in duration and far too small to record tower collapses. This was true of both the twin towers and 47-story WTC7. Again, no evidence of collapses. See Chapter 6.
4. SOUND: There were no loud explosions, as established by videos, witnesses, and the official report of NIST. Nor were there loud screeches and screams from massive metal falling, colliding, scraping and collapsing on metal. See Chapter 6.
5. DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air. Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, “I was standing there for a couple of seconds thinking where the f**k is the tower? I simply couldn’t comprehend it.” The dust rollout was so enormous and thick it blocked out sunlight and left an inch or more of dust covering downtown. Much of it wafted into the upper atmosphere. The volume was incredible. Particles from dust samples were smaller than red blood cells and about the size of DNA. As for toxicity, researchers said the dust “recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China.” See Chapters 8, 9, 14-16.
Give me a break.
That article WAS the break. Sad and horrifying as it is to contemplate, it was still probably cheaper than what the Port of New York Authority (owners) would have to pay for legitimate asbestos removal and demolition. Make the taxpayer & insurance companies pay!!
Thank you Stephan. The lies of the U.S. government and world elite are so prodigious and absurd that they can no longer be covered over. No thinking person should accept the explanation given for 9/11 because it violates the laws of physics and the right of the people to know the truth.
“Wherever a man commits a crime, God finds a witness. Every secret crime has its reporter.”
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
9/11 Finding The Truth by Andrew Johnson – Audiobook
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvaxr0OSBw2DtOWulcA96d7sG2rsNyOgb
THE DIRECTED ENERGY COVER-UP TEAM
https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/images/Richard-DavidG-StevenJ.jpg
Other examples of Directed Energy (not necessarily used as a weapon) are radio waves, cell phone signals, TV remote control signals, wireless internet signals…etc.
Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave in California (available in the internet archives*), telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]
At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”
In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.
Early on, Dr. Steven Jones created a website he called “The Journal of Nine Eleven Studies” or J.O.N.E.S. It is referred to as a “peer-reviewed journal” but the only peer-reviewing was to screen out true scientific work and post what he wanted his followers to believe. For the first two years, it was primarily used to promote disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work. For example, Jones recruited a patent attorney for the oil and gas industry (James Gourley**) to write hit pieces on Dr. Wood, refuting “ray beams from outer space.” This convinced his readers that “Judy Woods” must be talking about “ray beams from outer space” and that “such nonsense has been refuted.” Refuting false propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work does not refute Dr. Wood’s work — yet it creates the belief in the average person that Dr. Wood’s work has been refuted.
Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins also claimed that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL Steven Jones used to ridicule Dr. Wood during his talks saying that “Judy Woods needs to make calculations to see if it is even possible to turn the buildings to dust”. But any reputable scientist knows that calculations are not a part of observing empirical evidence. What are the calculations for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence.
The bottom line is that no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book nor can they. They only refute their own false propaganda about her book, not her book. Other detractors claim that “she hasn’t identified the weapon that was used so she’s got nothing.” To the contrary. The evidence is PROOF that there exists a technology that can do what was done. It happened. That is, the fact that the buildings mostly turned to dust in mid-air shows that there exists a weapon that can turn buildings into dust in mid-air. It happened.
The sub-title of the book, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” indicates that the book contains evidence of what happened on 9/11 and it is indeed evidence that a technology exists that can do what was done. But this technology does not have to be used for evil purposes. It can be used to provide free-energy to the world much to the demise of the oil and gas industry. That is, Dr. Wood is noting that the same technology that was used for evil can also be used for good. It’s a silver lining in the dark cloud… while also trying to stimulate thought about “what are we doing here? learning new ways to kill or to live”?
If you are worthy and willing to know the truth, read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? as I have. ♥
A TODDLERS GUIDE TO 9/11 PART ONE
https://www.youtube.com/v/XLyNb9BjTmM
A TODDLERS GUIDE TO 9/11 PART TWO
https://www.youtube.com/v/5ljqeg9sFgw#t=56
IRREFUTABLE
https://youtu.be/r51a2HnAXCQ
“When fascism came to America, Liberty was wrapped in the flag now carrying a cross”.