(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
One day in the summer of 2016, five years after quitting her job at the US Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), began Peter Michael Ketcham to read the reports that his former workplace had published about the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. Ketcham, a mathematician and IT science expert, had not participated in NIST's six-year investigation, nor had he sacrificed it especially a lot of attention.
His sudden interest, several years after the incident, was aroused during a conversation with a close friend who could tell that it was becoming increasingly clear that the official 9/11 narrative was probably not true. In a very short time, Ketcham says Stand for the Truth – a documentary he has produced himself and as his organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) dropped earlier this year – it became clear to him that NIST's investigation into the disaster was not a serious study. Ketcham was astounded when he discovered that NIST had done everything they could to avoid what he now believes to be the most likely hypothesis: that all three towers collapsed due to controlled demolition by blasting. "This was not a matter of some subtle disagreements, subtle discrepancies and different scientific beliefs that required further investigation," Ketcham says in the film: "This was obvious. Sole Clear, obvious. ”
"Clear" and "obvious" are strong words to come from a man who has been researching for the National Institute for 14 years – especially when considering the backdrop of continuous debate about the cause of the World Trade Center devastation – a debate that has lasted for over a year and a half.
civil engineer Jonathan Cole and the physicist Timothy Eastman published a review of the literature on the subject in 2013. "The most striking thing about our results is that there are serious discrepancies in how the WTC structures fell on September 11, 2001. Nearly twelve years after the disaster, this should not have been the case for such basic conditions, "The report states.
Before I propose an explanation for why this highly unusual scientific debate is raging further, I will summarize the "clear" and "obvious" evidence Ketcham discovered when he initiated his own investigation about a year ago.
Prior to the attack, no tall building with steel frame had completely collapsed due to fire. This is a well-established fact – something "everyone" agrees with. The official story claims that this phenomenon, which had never happened before, occurred this day in New York, three times and as good as at the same time. It started with the rapid and explosive destruction of the 110-storey twin towers at 29-minute intervals, followed almost seven hours later by the steady, symmetrical crash of the 47-story World Trade Center The 7-building (WTC 7) – which was not hit by any aircraft – straight into the ground, and with an acceleration almost equal to free fall. If you haven't seen the crash of WTC 7, I urge you to google it right away.
As we documented in the AE911Truth's 50-page booklet Beyond Misinformation, has controlled demolition and collapse due to fire essentially opposite characteristics. During controlled demolition, the collapse is always symmetrical (or designed to fall in a specific direction). However, in a collapse due to fire, the collapse is always asymmetrical.
On September 11, the collapses of the twin towers all but one showed signs of controlled demolition – namely that instead of starting at the foot of each tower, they began on the upper floors – while the collapse of the WTC 7 showed all signs of controlled demolition . In fact, the official narrative claims that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were not only the first steel frame skyscrapers to ever collapse as a result of fire, but that they were the first fire collapse to show almost all signs of controlled demolition – and not just one or two.
Scientists are not expected to provide unusual explanations for common occurrences unless there is outstanding evidence. Therefore, any neutral investigator who follows science-based principles of investigation will have controlled demolition as his primary hypothesis.
In the first days after 9/11, many wondered if the buildings had been deliberately destroyed – investigators, the first to arrive, news reporters and even some from the Bush administration. These immediately suspected that the destruction they had witnessed was due to pre-placed explosives. For example, building engineer and head of ABS Consulting Ronald Hamburger, who joined the first WTC survey, for example, told the Wall Street Journal on September 19, 2001: “It seemed to me that explosive charges had been placed in the building. When I heard that no bombs had exploded, I was very surprised. "
Although the collapse of the WTC 7 caught the attention of most of the world, reporters on site noticed the obvious similarity to classic controlled demolition. "I turned around in time to see what seemed like a skyscraper explosion," said reporter Al Jones in 1010 Wins. "It looked like it was done by a demolition team – it all just collapsed over itself." "It was almost like a planned implosion," a stunned Vince DeMentri commented on CBS 2. " together like a pancake. "
Melted aluminum is silvery, not yellowish orange.
However, engineers hired by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were either unaware of the possibility of controlled demolition, or never took it into account. Ronald Hamburger, a member of the FEMA research team quoted above, is the one who best exemplifies this textbook case of "expectation twisting."
Although Hamburger initially believed that "explosive charges had been placed in the building," he dropped this hypothesis as soon as he heard that no bombs had been detonated. Since the FEMA investigation was barely underway the day Hamburger was quoted in the Wall Street Journal – that is, on September 19 – the only way he could have "experienced" that no bombs were detonated was that the information came from the official narrative. Thus, without conducting any investigation, he concluded that fire was the cause.
If Hamburger and his colleagues had actually interviewed the hundreds of first-hand witnesses who had survived the disaster, they would have found plenty of eyewitness statements suggesting that "bombs" – or more precisely "explosives" – had been detonated. Between October 2001 and January 2002, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) conducted interviews with 503 of its staff to create a historical record of the incident. Graeme MacQueen, a retired professor of religious studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, conducted a methodological analysis of the interviews conducted by the World Trade Center Task Force, and found that 118 of the 503 FDNY employees involved described that they had seen, heard or felt phenomena they experienced as explosions. When he added statements from many other eyewitnesses, MacQueen came up with a total number of 156 documented witnesses to explosions.
Controlled demolition and collapse due to fire have essentially opposite characteristics – symmetrical and asymmetric collapse respectively.
If you don't have time to read all the 156 eyewitness accounts, I would suggest the vivid depiction of explosions from FDNY Captain Karin DeShore: "Somewhere around the center of the World Trade Center there was an orange and red glow of light coming out. At first there was only one, but then it continued to pop up all the way around the building, which had begun to explode. There was a popping sound, and for each pop, it appeared first orange and then red flashes of light, all the way around the building on both sides as far as I could see. The pop sounds and explosions got bigger and went both up and down and then around the whole building. ”
118 503 of
Not surprisingly, the FEMA report, published in May 2002, does not contain a single eyewitness statement about the collapse. NIST, which took over the task of explaining the WTC collapses after the FEMA report was submitted, initially denied that there were any signs of explosions. Confronted with 118 of the FDNY people declaring they had witnessed explosions, NIST wrote: "As a whole, the interviews do not support the presumption that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC towers."
MacQueen rejects NIST's logic. "We have 118 witnesses from a group of 503," he notes. “In other words, over 23 percent are explosion witnesses. In my opinion, this is a very large percentage of witnesses, especially when we consider that the interview items were typically not asked for explosions, and in most cases were not even asked about the collapse of the towers. The testimonies we have are from volunteers, and therefore do not represent the maximum number of explosion witnesses, rather a minimum number. ”
118 of 503 Fire Department New York employees involved said they saw, heard or felt phenomena they experienced as explosions.
After collecting eyewitness testimony, a neutral investigator would have initiated a forensic examination of the building remains. Unfortunately, such a thing was impossible, as the City of New York had quickly moved the steel from the WTC site and sold virtually everything for recycling before investigators could investigate it. Although a small amount of steel was taken care of, NIST refused to perform simple laboratory tests for residues of explosives or flammable substances. Later, NIST launched the deeply unscientific argument that such an analysis "would not necessarily lead to any conclusion". Needless to say opportunity for a test to reach no conclusion would never stop real scientists from conducting such a test.
400 degrees too small
Fortunately, there is still a considerable amount of forensic evidence that independent 9/11 researchers have had the opportunity to study, and this material, it turns out, is the most difficult for the official narrative to explain. One was this yellow orange, the metal melted which was seen flowing out of the South Tower continuously for seven minutes prior to the collapse, as duly documented in volumes 1-5 of the NIST report. Because the melting point of structural steel is about 1482 degrees Celsius and the highest temperature NIST assumes the fires reached in the Twin Towers was 1100 degrees, NIST had to come up with a creative explanation for this stream of molten metal. NIST therefore argued that the substance flowing out of the building "may have been molten aluminum", which has a lower melting point than steel.
But molten aluminum is silver, not yellow-orange. After painting into a corner, NIST later suggested that the molten aluminum turned yellow-orange because it was "very likely to be mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burnt organic matter."
Predictably, NIST did not bother to test this hypothesis. Unfortunately for NIST, physicist Steven Jones did. In the experiment, he discovered that mixing organic material with molten aluminum "did not change the silver color of the liquid aluminum".
Nanothermite in dust
While NIST was forced to admit that molten metal had actually flowed out of the southern tower – after all, they could not "want away" the numerous images found in photographs and videos – the commission refused to accept the molten metal as dozens of witnesses observed in the ruins. The closest NIST was to accept this evidence was when the institute made the obviously wrong claim that "melted steel in the residues was more likely to be derived from the high temperature caused by long-term incineration in the heap than from the brief fire or explosion impact while the building was standing" . The statement could not have been more striking error, since it is simply impossible for burning hydrocarbons to reach temperatures near 1482 degrees, especially in an oxygen-poor heap.
The most obvious explanation for the molten metal – namely, the form of fire-retardant material called "termite" was used to weaken the steel columns of the towers – was strengthened a few years later, when a group of scientists discovered unreacted nanothermite in four independent samples of WTC dust. Nanothermite is a form of termite with explosive properties developed at the nano level in places like Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. There is no reason why this substance should be found in four independent samples of World Trade Center dust – that is, no other reason than it was used to destroy all three structures.
Then comes the infamous, surprising statement from building owner Larry Silverstein about WTC 7 in the PBS documentary America Rebuilds from 2002: “I remember being called by the fire department action leader, who said they were not sure if they were able to stop the fire. I replied, 'You know, we've had such a terrible loss of life that the trickiest thing to do is tear it down (pull it). ' So they decided to tear it down and then the building collapsed. ”
Silverstein later claimed that when he used the term "pull it," he meant to evacuate firefighters from the building. However, other accounts support the interpretation that he intended to demolish the building. For example Fox News reporter Jeffrey Scott Shapiro wrote in 2010: "Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD bosses and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with insurance people to see if they could allow a controlled destruction of the building." When he spoke to MSNBC minutes after the rest, confirmed FDNY Lieutenant David Restuccio: "We had heard that the building was unstable and that it would either fall on its own or be taken down."
The official narrative only survives because of agreed efforts to hide the truth, the inability to accept the dimensions of the deception, and the reluctance of those who know the truth to speak out.
But perhaps the most conclusive evidence of all is the total absence of evidence that fires had something to do with the collapse, and the failure that followed at NIST when it came to building a complete and plausible hypothesis.
In the Twin Towers case, NIST stopped its own analysis at the time the building began to collapse, taking it for granted that a complete collapse was inevitable when the upper part of each tower lost support and began to fall. When the Commission was pressed at this point, NIST agreed that it was "unable to provide a complete explanation of the total collapse". article "Some Misunderstandings Related to the WTC Collapse Analysis", published in the International Journal of Protective Structures in 2013, helps us understand why NIST was "unable to provide a full explanation". It mathematically shows that the collapse of the upper part would have stopped after one to two floors with no explosives inside the image.
In WTC 7's case NIST failed to make any analysis whatsoever which could substantiate what they believe triggered the total collapse of the tower. NIST also cut out key structural features of the building from its data model – properties that, if they had been involved, make NIST's "probable collapse sequence" indisputably impossible.
NIST's total failure to build a complete and credible hypothesis brings us back to the question of why this highly unusual scientific debate lives on for 16 years after the attack took place. The reality is that rather than being a scientific debate, this is a political struggle to decide the public narrative of the most scathing event of the 21st century.
In this fight we find "clear" and "obvious" evidence on the one hand, and an official narrative based on scientific fraud on the other. The latter only survives because of agreed efforts among a few to hide the truth, the inability of many to accept the dimensions of the deception, and the reluctance of those who know the truth to speak out.
Let's hope that as we experience this traumatizing event more and more in the distance, we will see more people like Peter Ketcham, with the courage to rethink what they once believed, and with the moral drive to do so. something about it.