noworldsystem.com


Huffington Post Censors Ventura About 9/11

Huffington Post Censors Ventura About 9/11

Jesse Ventura wrote an article about 9/11 on the Huffington Post that quickly disappeared off the website leaving a message Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post. Here is what they didn’t want you to see.:

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?

You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 447 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.

Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.” [i]

Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpyAyIqeFOg

 

Jesse Ventura on The View – (03/10/2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yaxk5XQpR0

Huffington Post Kills Jesse Ventura’s Piece On 9/11

 



Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkPO6ksgyVM

Pentagon cab driver ADMITS 9/11 attack was staged

911 Mysteries: Controlled Demolition

 



Zero Investigation Into 9/11 (movie)

Zero Investigation Into 9/11 (movie)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739&hl=en

 



Fabled Enemies (the movie)
September 14, 2008, 1:35 pm
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 commission, 9/11 commission report, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 hijackers, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 planes, 9/11 survivors, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 wargames, 9/11 whistleblowers, 9/11 workers, Able Danger, Afghanistan, Air Force, air force one, al-qaeda, Alabama, alaska, Alex Jones, anthrax, army, ATF, barry jennings, BBC, BBC foreknowledge, biden, Big Brother, Bill Clinton, bin laden, Bush Sr., California, Canada, carlyle group, CIA, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Congress, Continuity of Government, Controlled Demolition, Cynthia McKinney, DEA, Dennis Kucinich, Department of Defense, Department of justice, DHS, Dick Cheney, Dictatorship, DoD, Donald Rumsfeld, double agent, Echelon, Empire, EPA, False Flag, FBI, federal crime, Flight 93, florida, Fort Detrick, George Bush, george h. w. bush, Ground Zero, Homeland Security, House, INS, inside job, IRS, ISI, Israel, jerusalem, jihadist, joe biden, lee hamilton, Loose Change, Luke Rudkowski, marine, Martial Law, Media, michael chertoff, middle east, Military, mineta, Mineta Testemony, mohammed atta, money fraud, money laundering, Mossad, Mystery Plane, nation building, navy, New York, NIST, NORAD, NSA, occupation, Pakistan, Patriot Act, Pentagon, Philip Zelikow, Propaganda, Psyops, Richard Armitage, Saudi Arabia, SEC, secret service, Senate, sibel edmonds, special forces, Spy, State Sponsored Terrorism, sudan, Surveillance, Taliban, telecoms, Texas, thomas kean, Turkey, visa, War Crimes, war games, War On Terror, warrantless search, warrantless wiretap, Washington D.C., We Are Change, White House, World Trade Center, Zionism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fabled Enemies (the movie)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&hl=en

 



Psychology & WTC7

Psychology & WTC7


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXPIfBkzhs

NIST Concludes “Fire” Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had “low probability” of Knocking Down Tower
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/wtc-7-report-response-round-up.html

 



NIST Turns Lights Off 9/11 Truther’s Questions

NIST Turns Lights Off 9/11 Truther’s Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TzHx-ESjbY

Bad Faith: WTC 7 and the Official Lies
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.c..-wtc-7-and-official-lies.html

Two Powerful Forces Should Have Made WTC 7 Tip Over
http://georgewashington2.blogsp..o-powerful-forces-should-have-made.html

Scientists and scientific explanations
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17297

 



Debunking NIST’s Conclusion That Fire Brought Down WTC-7

Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

George Washington’s Blog
August 20, 2008

The Government’s side (ever changing)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4426102965720761539&hl=en

9/11 truth’s side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yn2Z5UCoPg

NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very least – we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.

In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.

Freefall Speed

NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.

Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?

Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.

No Explosive Sounds

NIST also said:

“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.”

Oh, really?

What about this, this, this, this, this and this?

Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don’t necessarily make the same loud “booms” that dynamite make.

High-Tech Explosive Residues

And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?

Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel

And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?

And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.

Pre-Knowledge

And why didn’t NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?

Experts

And why didn’t NIST address what these experts say?:

  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”

  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

  • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

 

NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 22, 2008

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.

Which is the more likely scenario – that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” – or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.

Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.

“FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”

The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.

NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.

As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”

Read Full Article Here

 

BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture UVSC

As federal agency declares ‘new phenomenon’ downed WTC 7, activists cry foul
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/B..oses_theory_on_0821.html

NIST Claims Fires Brought Down WTC-7

http://www.nytimes.com/2008..em=&pagewanted=print