Paul Craig Roberts reports on the recent Building 7 report

[thepainterdoug]

jeez what a shocker.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/201...lies-in-ruins/

“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

[Satori]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
jeez what a shocker.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/201...lies-in-ruins/

“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/t...harmaceutical/

[thepainterdoug]

satori, usually many pages reduces itself down to the simple essence. can you share with us what that is? a summary.

[Satori]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
satori, usually many pages reduces itself down to the simple essence. can you share with us what that is? a summary.

The quote in my post above the link to the article actually summarizes the article, albeit broadly.

The abstract in the beginning of the article, which is two paragraphs, provides a more detailed summary.

In short, the article states that the official explanation of the cause(s) of the destruction of not only WTC 7, but WTC 1 and 2, is, as a matter of law, scientifically unreliable given the generally accepted scientific understanding of the laws of physics. Consequently, an impartial judge in a criminal or civil trial which was being held to decide what caused the destruction of these buildings would not allow expert testimony in support of the official explanation of the cause of the destruction of these buildings, i.e., plane impact and contents fire, into evidence. Rather, an impartial judge would exclude from evidence any such expert evidence because it is scientifically unreliable. Thus, a jury would never see or hear such evidence and would, therefore, not find that the official explanation is accurate or truthful.

Conversely, expert testimony and evidence offered to establish that the buildings were destroyed by means of explosive of various forms and technical characteristics that had been planted in the buildings prior to 9/11 and then detonated on that day, would be admitted into evidence. Such expert evidence would be admitted because it is scientifically reliable, for the simple reason that such evidence comports with the known laws of physics. Thus, an impartial judge would admit such evidence and allow a jury to consider it.

Consequently, a jury's findings regarding the cause(s) of the destruction of these buildings would be based upon one or more scientifically reliable demolition hypotheses and not the official fairytale in which, among other things, the known laws of physics were suspended in certain areas of New York City on September 11, 2001.

[yelik]

As I understand Governments can instigate a number of different types of investigation.

Was 911 a politically motivated terrorist act or organised crime which have different procedures and responsibilities.

Until it is seen as organised crime we have a problem. Even Trump said at the time it looked like a controlled demolition but he's likely afraid to challenge those controlling the establishment - The Elites rarely leave any forensic evidence

.................."The National Construction Safety Team Act (NCST Act), signed into law on October 1, 2002 by President George W. Bush, mandated the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish the likely technical cause or causes of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center as a result of a terrorist attack.[1] NIST issued its final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers in September 2005. It issued its final report on 7 World Trade Center in November 2008."

NIST concluded that the collapse of each tower resulted from the combined effects of airplane impact damage, widespread fireproofing dislodgment, and the fires that ensued. The sequence of failures that NIST concluded initiated the collapse of both towers involved the heat-induced sagging of floor trusses pulling some of the exterior columns on one side of each tower inward until they buckled, after which instability rapidly spread and the upper sections then fell onto the floors below.[2] World Trade Center Building 7 (7WTC), which was never directly hit by an airplane, collapsed as a result of thermal expansion of steel beams and girders that were heated by uncontrolled fires caused by the collapse of the North Tower and failure of the fire-resistive material.[3]"

[thepainterdoug]

so any fire from here on, in a modern steel structure high riser , should warrant immediate evacuation for fear of imminent collapse. and based on the many catastrophic fires in huge skyscrapers in other countries and around the world that burned for days at even a more constant heat without collapse, this is specifically a NYCity Physics Phenomena .

[ExomatrixTV]

• We've Been Lied To All Along:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aZXsIkbxMGo

Dr. Leroy Hulsey is a Professor Emeritus of Structural Engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the world’s preeminent expert on the collapse of World Trade Center’s Building 7 on September 11, 2001. In this interview with Jimmy Dore Dr. Hulsey reveals the scientific basis that led him to conclude that the impact of the planes hitting the twin towers and any fires that were raging through the building could NOT have caused WTC 7 to collapse into its own footprint.

Jimmy and Kurt Metzger talk to Dr. Hulsey about his research, how he was persuaded to undertake this project and what kind of response his evidence-based conclusions have elicited from the media.

[Open Minded Dude]

Fun Fact: Most people (just like that professor interviewed) in the world to this day believe that only two towers collapsed on that day instead of three. WTC 7 collapse does not even exist for them.

[ExomatrixTV]

Posted by Open Minded Dude (here)
Fun Fact: Most people (just like that professor interviewed) in the world to this day believe that only two towers collapsed on that day instead of three. WTC 7 collapse does not even exist for them.

Even if they did know about WTC7, they just blindly trust the virtual "computer models" created by the NIST WTC7 Report to explain "what happened" ... just like blindly believing rigged computer models that are used to "flatten de curve" BS and "Case Fatality Rate CFR Numbers" of (falsely) assumed: "COVID deaths".

• Now they use totally corrupt "computer models" tactics to push for Climate Scare Hysteria, same or similar deception & mass psychology tactics!

... and when their predictions are proven wrong, they use (false) "circular accusation logic" claiming it is "our fault" we did not follow their totally made up mandates & insane edicts/decrees to the fullest.

And in ALL cases of these/their weapons of mass deception are done with help using special rigged A.I. tools! ... Garbage in = garbage out.

When "Crisis Managers" become Perception Managers, inducing Mass Hypnosis.

cheers,
John Kuhles 🦜🦋🌳
February 19th, 2024

[Johnnycomelately]

The Somber September events were and are a wake-up call, with sseeing who believes and follows the official explanations.

I got kicked off a military website for raising the question (20th anniversary, so I was fired up), with supporting data/info, of (at least) CONUS-based apparent complicity. Got kicked off again, after promising to never mention that again, by kind of mentioning it later.