Andy Steele: Welcome to another episode of 9/11 Free Fall. I am the host, Andy Steele, and today we’re going to be talking with Roland Angle, our chairman here at AE911 Truth.

 

AE911 Truth Chairman’s Qualification and Background

top

 

Now, I don’t know if it’s going to run before or after this particular Free Fall episode, but at some point this week, you’re going to see him giving an awesome presentation on our new show called The Focus. So we bring on a panel of engineers we’re presenting on topics that are within the controlled demolition issue, but it zeroes in on a particular aspect, questions not before asked.

 

So if it’s not out yet, keep an eye out for that bulletin and Roland’s presentation. If we have put it out already by the time you see this show, then certainly go to our YouTube channel and check it out.

 

But who is this guy? Well, he’s been on this show before. He is the chairman of AE911 Truth. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, with a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering and also served in the US. Army Special Forces, where he was trained in the use of explosives. That’s very pertinent to our issue.

 

He became a licensed civil engineer in California, and his 50 years of engineering experience has included designing and testing blast hardened missile launch facilities and designing US. Naval explosive containers, harbor terminal facilities, earth foundation systems, and hydraulic systems. He’s owned three different construction companies, and he’s taught engineering subjects to high school students.

 

And of course, he heads up AE911 Truth’s Project Due Diligence, which we’ll be talking a little bit about today. It’s getting engineers out into the grassroots of the engineering community, also out into local citizens groups as well. Talking about the World Trade Center evidence, the points clearly showing that these buildings were brought down with explosives. Along with that, Roland has a book that is going to be coming out. We announced it earlier this week.

 

So let’s just go ahead and bring him in. He’ll be talking about that today. Roland, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall!

 

Roland Angle: Thanks for having me back, Andy. Always good to be here.

 

Andy Steele: Yeah, and it’s great having you here. You’re doing a lot of work, and it’s work that when we see the fruit of it, we talk about it.

 

But a lot of stuff that happens behind the scenes, people don’t get to see. So I love to be able to highlight the heroes here that don’t always get out into the spotlight and don’t really seek it.

 

But we wouldn’t have this Project Due Diligence going on if you hadn’t stepped up and really put all of this together, had the idea and devised it. And you work with a lot of engineer volunteers. In doing that, we’re probably picking up new people, don’t know what the heck I’m talking about when I say Project Due Diligence. So just briefly remind our audience what that is, what those engineers are doing, and essentially what it’s all about.

 

[03:35]

 

Project Due Diligence

top

 

Roland Angle: Project Due Diligence is our attempt to educate our fellow engineers, particularly the structural and civil engineers, in regards to the evidence that we have uncovered regarding the failure of the three high rise buildings at World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11 [2001]

 

We have examined the reports that were issued by the National Institute of Standards of Technology [NIST] on the Twin Towers in 2005 and on the Building Seven in 2008, as they were required to do by the law that was passed by Congress in October of 2002, more than a year after the event. Tasking them with the job of investigating the collapse of the buildings and coming up with the reasons why the buildings collapsed.

 

So we started reading those reports as architects and engineers individually back in 2005 when the first one came out. By 2006, it was already evident that the report on the Twin Towers was seriously flawed. And we knew that because it never did explain what it was supposed to explain, which is why and how the buildings collapsed.

 

It was a 13,000 page document that ended at the beginning of the initiation of the collapse of the building. And they explained the collapse of the building with three words:

 

“Global collapse ensued.”

 

And that was their total technical explanation for how that building came down.

 

Well, that’s not what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to give us a model, an analysis, and a reason why that building came down, both of them, in the manner in which they did, which was in about 10 seconds. And that was a totally unexpected event. Everyone in the world was shocked by what they saw that day.

 

NIST Report Utterly Failed to Explain the Collapses

top

 

And it was our engineering expertise that was called upon to explain why and how that happened. And that report utterly failed to even address the question! It went into the plane impacts. It went into the fires. It went into the structural damage due to the plane impacts, the damage caused by the fires. But once the collapse began, the narrative left off, and didn’t give us any explanation for why the entire lower parts of the buildings collapsed.

 

So in 2006, an architect in the East Bay, Richard Gage, began to question this report, and he began to make appearances to his fellow architects, to engineers, to the general public, to anyone who would listen. And I attended one of those performances back in 2007, or so right around there is and he made a great deal of sense. He made a good argument that the report on the Twin Towers actually raised more questions than it answered.

 

So he had a petition there that people could sign asking for a new investigation, and he had one for architects and engineers as experts in the field. I signed that petition is and a couple of years later, the report on Building Seven came out, and it took several years to analyze that report. We did get the details of a collapse mechanism in that report that NIST compiled.

 

[07:45]

 

But as we began to look into their what they called a “progressive collapse theory”, the details of the report indicated that there were decisions made that did not follow the evidence and did not give a scientific explanation for why the building came down that made any sense.

 

The Founding of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

top

 

So we simply added Building Seven onto our questions about the Twin Towers. And in the meantime, Richard had founded the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth that we are currently operating within. And the organization since then has grown and involved literally thousands of people. More than 3,500, 3,600 architects and engineers have since signed the petition calling for a new investigation. I think more than 30,000 lay persons have signed that petition. We presented it to our Congress people and to NIST, and we’ve made every attempt to get the engineering community to look at this event with new eyes is and we have met with a lot of resistance.

 

So when I came on the board in 2017, I believe it was, I was asked if I would oversee an outreach to the engineering community is under Richard [Gage] they had focused on the architectural community, and they had gone to the national conventions of the American Institute of Architects [AIA] for three years in a row and raised a proposition at the conventions calling for a new investigation and asking for the AIA to endorse that request. And the AIA refused! The vote in favor of that never got more than about ten or 11% of the attendees.

 

911 as an Engineering Issue Not an Architectural Issue

top

 

So my impression of that was that the architects didn’t want to get out in front of the engineers. This was really not an architectural failure. Architects, of course, and engineers worked together to design and build structures of this nature. But architects, that’s not their bailiwick. They’re not going to go into the structural details of a collapse of this nature. And I could understand their reluctance to pre-empt the engineering community when it was really an engineering problem.

 

The Start a Project Called Project Due Diligence

top

 

So I proposed that we start a project called Project Due Diligence to take the information that we had put together our analysis of the NIST Reports and the FEMA report before it and take it out to the engineering community because it was clear that the leadership of our professional organizations did not want to have this discussion with their members. And that was made clear to us by their attitude when we approached them and said:

 

“Listen, we’ve got this information. We think it’s important for our community. We’d like to make presentations at your conference. We’d like a venue so that we can have this discussion and everyone in our profession can benefit from it.”

 

That wasn’t happening.

 

So we took on an approach of instead of going to the leadership, we decided to go to the membership at the grassroots level. And we focused on the American Society of Civil Engineers is because that organization is the big gorilla on the block in the profession. They’ve been around since 1857. They have an established reputation of looking out for the interest of our profession.

 

[11:50]

 

And in fact, when I was in college, I joined their honor society, Kai Epsilon, because it was an organization that said that it was going to promote the ethical and professional interests of the profession.

 

And I thought that was a good thing to do.

 

Training Engineers to Do Presentations

top

 

Well, Tony Szamboti and I put together a PowerPoint based upon a lot of other information that had been collected by Richard and others before him. And we started taking that information out. Then I went, oh, I took the petition signers that, the petition that I had signed. We had the record of everyone that had signed that since is at that time there was something like 1,000 signatures there.

 

And I went through there with the help of the staff, and we selected the civil and structural engineers that had signed. And I began calling them up, and asking them if they were interested in an effort to take this information that we had compiled out to the rank and file branches of the American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE] all across the country, of which there are about 161 local branches.

 

So I was successful in recruiting about 40 engineers that said that they would be glad to do that is they thought that that was an important thing to do is and they volunteered to learn the material and to make presentations in their area if the opportunity arose.

 

So we got that information out to them. We had some training. We went through the information. We felt satisfied that it made sense. And we began reaching out in 2018 to the local chapters of ASCE.

 

Results – 100% Agreement That NIST Reports Did Not Meet Professional Standards

top

 

And what we found was that wherever we made these presentations, wherever we got accepted and then we went out and we made the presentations, we found that the engineers that were in attendance were 100% in agreement with us is that the NIST Reports did not meet our professional standards. They had a lot of anomalies, a lot of omissions, a lot of problems with those reports that we felt needed to be addressed. And we asked them if they felt the same way after we made our presentations is we always got 100% agreement.

 

So in the course of the last four or five years, we’ve made that presentation to more than 1,000 engineers at the grassroots level, all across the country is everywhere from Florida to Alaska, to the New York area, to California, the Southwest, the Southeast, the Midwest. Everywhere we’ve gone, we’re getting 100% agreement from the rank and file that the issues that we’ve raised need to be addressed.

 

[14:56]

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE] Preventing Presentations to Its Members

top

 

And yet we have come across extremely recalcitrant leadership that insists upon branding us as “conspiracy theorists” and whenever they can, preventing us from making any kind of presentations to their chapters. And that has happened. We’ve been accepted and then later rejected more than 30 times in the last four years. And we’ve managed to make 50 presentations, many of them to ASCE chapters, but also to the National Society of Professional Engineers and some other engineering organizations and some public presentations as well.

 

Project Due Diligence — A Coherent Explanation of What Went Wrong with the Gov Reports

top

 

So that’s what Project Due Diligence is all about. And the book that I’m putting together, this is not my information. This is information that’s been collected by all those volunteers and by all the researchers that went through the reports and came up with the anomalies that we were able to put together in a coherent strategy, a coherent explanation of what we thought went wrong with the reports.

 

So that’s Project Due Diligence. That’s what the book is about. I’m not taking credit for it myself. This has been a huge effort over many years, and we now need to make a report to the profession and to the public that explains what the process has been, what our findings have been, what the reaction has been t11

 

And we’ve gone a little further and identified a lot of the engineers that were involved in the preparation of the NIST Reports, the FEMA reports, and all the periphery people, the contractors, the academics, all the people that had anything to do with this question. We have tried to identify them, and we call them persons of interest.

 

Because we believe that somewhere in that group of people are persons who were somehow coerced into making decisions that were not consistent with our professional standards, that justified the official narrative. And that narrative is what is currently being bolstered by our professional organizations. And there’s really no basis in reality for it. And we’re unable to get them to engage in a dialogue.

 

So the book is our next step.

 

Andy Steele: I consider it sort of the ignition test for these professional organizations. And what do I mean by that? Let’s just going back to the nano-thermite evidence when they actually do ignition tests to actually get the thermitic reaction on the samples there.

 

And sometimes you have to test what you’re up against just to see the reaction that they give you. For instance, when we did the, Span campaign, the defensive and ridiculous answers from politicians was outlined by somebody in a video saying:

 

“We’ve got a major problem here, because asking them these direct questions about this evidence brought this out of them and showed where the real problem is.”

 

[18:26]

 

Professional Organizations Unable to Debunk AE911truth So They Try to Cancel It

top

 

And so through Project Due Diligence, by going to try to give these presentations, you’re basically testing these professional organizations. And I don’t know if that was the main motive when you started, but that’s what it’s turning into. And we’re seeing the resistance here. Because if there is nothing to what we’re saying, then they should be able to debunk it. They don’t debunk it. Or to have some kind of open dialogue. If they think it’s just a ridiculous conspiracy theory, what better opportunity is there to try to shoot holes in it, take it down and show it for what it is? But they won’t do that either because they can’t argue with that.

 

So now their only recourse is to try to cancel presentations, get ahead of them, do the politicking behind the scenes. And I don’t want to get into too much details about some of the things that our engineers are going through, but there is a lot of pressure on these engineers to maintain the status quo, to not rock the boat and to not bring up this issue at all!

 

So kind of going into some of what I perceive going to be some of the themes in your upcoming book Roland, what skin does organizations like the ASCE and the other professional organizations have in this game? I mean, if the NIST Reports are wrong, seemingly they should want to be the heroes for taking the first step towards spotlighting that or at least acknowledging it and coming off as an unbiased and science-first organization. So why do you think there’s such a strong cover-up there?

 

The People That Committed This Crime Also Planned the Cover Up

top

 

Roland Angle: It’s pretty clear that the evidence shows that the analyses that NIST has come up with are wrong. We’re 1000 to nothing on that case, from the rank and file! Unfortunately, the people that committed this crime also planned the cover-up. You can divide the crime into three sections; the planning, the execution and the cover-up. Clearly the people that committed the crime did not want to be held responsible for what they did.

 

The Cover-Up Sequence

top

 

So the cover-up involves planning a false narrative, creating some patsies that are going to take the fall, and then monitoring that cover up over time, as time goes on, to make sure that nobody deviates from that narrative and anybody that does is going to be punished.

 

So we saw on the day of the event there were multiple recordings and eyewitness reports of explosions in the buildings, overwhelmingly, some 40 plus. And almost every one of them, the talking head that was representing the interviews described and interviewed people that also described multiple explosions in the buildings.

 

So you would think that the narrative that would follow from that naturally would be:

 

“We’re going to investigate what could have possibly caused those explosions in the building.”

 

Instead, what you saw was a narrative that took over the very next day saying they:

 

“Had already identified the 19 hijackers. They knew who they were, we had their faces, we had their names. And what must have caused the buildings to collapse was the airplane impacts and the fires that weakened the structure afterwards and that’s why the buildings collapsed.”

 

And that became the narrative from there on.

 

NIST Reports, Didn’t Even Examine the Evidence of Explosives

top

 

And even NIST, when they compiled their reports, didn’t even examine the evidence of explosives. And they admitted that! Very strange! Very strange! If you have all these eyewitness reports, you have buildings that were previously the target of a terrorist attacks using explosives, 1993. And the Fire Code called for in collapses of this type, you would always check for incendiaries and explosives. They ignored the Fire Code.

 

[22:57]

 

So these were all problems, problems for their narrative. And in order to get around that, they had devised a plan where they would work with the primary professional engineering organizations to provide the investigators and look into why the buildings collapsed with them. So FEMA took over the examination immediately upon the event, which is their job. They’re supposed to, they are the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So they go in whenever there’s an emergency. This was clearly an emergency that fell within their purview, and they went in. And they were supposed to be the ones that sort of made an initial assessment and then came up with a plan for whatever needed to be done to further the investigation, take whatever remedial action that was necessary.

 

From Sep 2021 to Oct 22 Most of the Evidence was Destroyed

top

 

So it took a year and a month, October the first, 2002, for Congress to act to pass a law that specifically designated the National Institute of Standards and Technology as the agency that was going to conduct those investigations.

 

So in the intervening years, in the intervening months, from September of 2001 to October of 2002, most of the evidence was destroyed. They picked up all the steel debris. They destroyed it. They sent steel off to China for recycling. Nobody seemed to be able to stop them, even though there were many people on the scene that realized that they were destroying evidence that was going to be necessary in order to conduct a forensic examination of what had happened. But at any rate, NIST was designated as the agency to provide the investigations in October of 2002, and they took that responsibility up.

 

NIST Shouldn’t Have Been the Organization to Investigate 911 Due to Conflict of Interest

top

 

But there’s a lot of evidence that they shouldn’t have because they were not immune from the kind of pressures that was going to be brought on them to alter the events and save face for people that might have been responsible. Because the executive branch of the government was responsible for protecting us that day, and they failed to do so. And this is part of the Department of Commerce, which is also an executive arm of the government.

 

So essentially, you had a case where you were asking the executive branch of the government to examine the executive branch of the government, and the executive branch of the government was a party to the event.

 

[26:03]

 

So the director of NIST should have declined that directive from Congress and cited a conflict of interest, which was actually in the law. He could have referred to the law that they had just passed and said:

 

“I can’t do this. We have a conflict of interest.”

 

But they pursued it.

 

And then they went out and hired subcontractors to do a lot of the work, do a lot of the analysis, gathering of the evidence, what was left, and so on.

 

Professional Engineers Associations Involved in the Cover-Up

top

 

So that presents the problem that we’re faced with which is that the big mucky mucks in the professional engineers associations, primarily from ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association, were the ones that actually conducted the investigations and wrote many parts of the reports that NIST produced.

 

So they have a vested interest. They are signatories to the original NIST Reports and it’s going to be difficult for them to admit that the reports are not consistent with the evidence.

 

So that was a bit of genius on the part of the people that planned the crime. They knew that they were going to have to plan the cover-up as well. And they did that by dragging in the luminaries of the engineering field, had them participate in the report and control the outcome of the reports by having people in strategic places that were able to pull the strings to make sure that the conclusions that they came to were not consistent with the evidence.

 

Now let me just be clear. I don’t believe that anybody in the engineering field, in any part of these organizations was a criminal that planned the crime. I think that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and they were somehow incentivized to make decisions in the process of those reports that weren’t consistent with the evidence. And I’m quite sure that there’s many of them that are aware of that.

 

But when you’re dealing with a criminal activity of this nature that plunged the whole world into World War it can be quite intimidating. And I can understand that. I have compassion for these people.

 

We’ve Identified 23 Decisions in Those Reports That Are Not Consistent with the Evidence

top

 

On the other hand, they are the ones that could possibly lead us to the perpetrators because somebody pulled their strings. Somebody told them:

 

“No, you’re not going to make that decision. You’re going to make this decision.”

 

And we’ve identified 23 decisions in the process of all three of those reports that are not consistent with the evidence and don’t make sense in the sense of the people that made them couldn’t have possibly believed that that was true, unless they were incompetent.

 

And I can’t believe that 23 separate decisions were made randomly all in favor of the alternative narrative that they had created, and all dismissive of the notion that explosives could have brought the buildings down.

 

[29:17]

 

So that’s where we are. It’s politics! Politics! Somebody within power had the ability to influence the leadership of our professional organizations in the engineering field, and we took the black eye! Because all three of those buildings came down due to what we call “design loads”. The two towers were designed to take a hit from a commercial airplane. And Building Seven, which supposedly collapsed according to their narrative due to normal office fires, had never occurred in the history of steel frame buildings.

 

So when you have a failure of that magnitude, of any magnitude really that where the structure fails under a design load, something that was designed to withstand, then you have a problem. Something is wrong with your theory! There’s something that you don’t understand. Why didn’t it hold up under the loads that you thought it would?

 

So you have to investigate that. And that usually involves an investigative team and then issuing a report, having it peer reviewed by other organizations.

 

And then there’s a debate that goes back and forth about the findings. And over time, you narrow down the field of possibilities, and you eventually come to the correct conclusion. And that’s the practice. That’s the engineering practice that’s been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

 

The Investigative Process was Derailed by the Very Organizations Creating the Reports

top

 

So in this case, that whole process was derailed by the very organizations that had been involved in creating the reports in the first place, at least at the top levels.

 

So that’s a problem for us as engineers. We cannot allow that kind of misinformation to creep into the reality of our practice, because it will only spread like a cancer. And we’ll then begin really having problems with our designs and with our construction procedures because we have allowed ourselves to be conned by an investigation that’s not accurate, and a reliance on a theory of failure that doesn’t match the facts.

 

Andy Steele: That’s right. And once you start letting science get infiltrated, muddied, by politics, by just pre-designed stories that they wanted to cement in people’s heads early on, once you allow that to happen and you keep on redrawing that line, then it’s hard to stop it from happening again in the future. All science gets politicized, and then people start believing in something that has no scientific backing behind it whatsoever, because you’re already set down the precedent.

 

Everything that happens in government and in our society is all based on precedent. You let people get away with one thing here, then they can get away with something else even bigger in the future. And there definitely was a decision at some point, sometime, to not look or take seriously the possibility that explosives were used in those towers. They were throwing it out right from day one.

 

[32:37]

 

Peter Jennings’ Strange Question About Building Seven

top

 

In fact, I have a clip of Peter Jennings from ABC Nightly News the evening of September 11. This is after Building Seven had already come down. He brings on an engineer, and I think it’s somebody of some importance in the engineering community giving his initial thoughts on why the buildings possibly came down. And can’t remember who that was off the top of my head. But at one point, Peter Jennings speculates, and he says:

 

“Have we gotten a lock on why that third building come down there?”

 

And you can see sort of like a little bit of suspicion in his eyes. And he asks the question. He said:

 

“Do you think that possibly a structural engineer had some hand in the planning of this event?”

 

This is a really strange question to be asking after asking about World Trade Center Seven. So even at that moment, you could sort of tell that Peter Jennings mind was spinning a little bit, wondering how these buildings could have just come down from the airplane impact. And in the case of Building Seven, no airplane hitting it at all!

 

And then, of course, I never heard him mention anything else about that afterwards.

 

But they had to get ahead of this as quickly as possible. And I believe that at some point the word had to be put forth that:

 

“We are not going to consider the possibility that explosives were used. We’re going to dismiss them outright!”

 

And that is part of the cover-up, whether willing or unwilling!

 

It’s fascinating to see what happens sociologically, professionally, to contribute to cover-ups. Not everybody who participates in a cover up really sees the full picture of it or even knows that they’re in a cover-up, but that is all part of the cover-up.

 

Book: Engineering the 911 Cover-Up – How the WTC Evidence was Kept Secret from the World

top

 

And from my understanding, that’s what some of your book is going to be getting into.

 

Now I just want to tell our audience the name of the book is; Engineering the 9/11 Cover-up-How the WTC Evidence was Kept Secret from the World. If you donate $35 to help us keep our operation going while we put this book together and do all the great stuff that PDD [Project Due Diligence] is doing, you can get early access to the book. You get the chapters sent to your inbox every month, a nice little flip book format that we’ve got set up for this. You can send your commentary in. We certainly want to hear your suggestions and thoughts about it. And then, of course, there will be a final volume that goes out.

 

Roland, what do you want the legacy of this book to be? What do you want people coming away with when they read it and taking forward into the future with regard to this issue?

 

[35:05]

 

Roland Angle: Well, that’s a good question. We feel strongly that our profession has been misrepresented, and we want to set the record straight. We may not have the political clout at this particular time to bring this information to the public in a way that has the kind of impact that it should have, because we don’t control the media and we don’t control the government agencies that were involved.

 

But we can publish our findings and make it available to the public and to other members of our profession so they at least understand that there were some of us that understood that there was a real problem here. And we made every effort to bring it to the attention of our fellow colleagues and to the public at large so that we could come to a realistic and accurate appraisal of why those buildings failed, causing such great loss of life and becoming the event that was used to project foreign policy into the future for the next decades.

 

911 is a Major Event – Hundreds of Thousands, Millions of People Died as a Result

top

 

So this is a major event. This is not just a dam failure, or a road failure, or a minor failure, every failure is a failure. Some failures don’t cost anybody their life, and that’s a fortunate thing. There are other failures that do and cost maybe dozens of lives. But this failure resulted in a loss of something like 25, 27, 2,800 people in the buildings and in the planes. And resulted in further loss of life because of the changes in direction that the foreign policy of the United States took after that. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people, died as a result of those events.

 

So we have a heavy burden!

 

And as engineers, civil engineers and structural engineers, of course, we always have the foremost notion that the safety of the public is our number one priority. And in this case, the buildings came down under design loads that they were supposed to withstand. And we have to explain why! The government has issued reports.

 

And when we look at those reports, we say those reports fail. They have too many anomalies, too many omissions, too many things that are unexplained. And there’s an absolute refusal on the part of the authorities and the engineering profession leadership to have any discussion of this whatsoever!

 

So that’s very suspicious. As you say, if they had an answer for the questions that we raised, believe me, they would come forth with those answers and they would say:

 

“This is why you’re wrong.”

 

That’s the process that we normally go through. But to be met with silence, that’s a telltale event right there. They don’t want to discuss it. Why not? Only because they don’t have an answer!

 

So we already have our answer. We know they’re wrong. We know the reports are wrong. We know they were taken over by political forces that are outside of the field of engineering.

 

As Engineers, We Still Have Our Duty to Tell the Truth as We Understand It

top

 

But as engineers, we still have our duty. And our duty is to tell the truth as we understand it to the best of our ability, for how those buildings fail. And that’s what we’re going to do. And we’re going to make the record for history. And we know that history is going to exonerate us at some point. Things will have progressed on to the point where this becomes a historical event. And those people that are responsible for the cover-up and the crime are long gone. Perhaps at that point the truth will be able to emerge.

 

[39:19]

 

But we don’t want to wait that long. We think that there are still people around that were involved in the crime, and we’re going to make every attempt to bring them to justice with what we can do, which is through a competent forensic examination of the evidence.

 

So that’s what we’re going to do. And we’re going to point out the people that were involved in those investigations, and hopefully somebody among them will have the courage to come forward and give us more information about how exactly these strings were pulled and these decisions were made.

 

Andy Steele: Right. And we’re also going to be sending this book to engineers when we can, because engineers, like anybody in a profession, if they’re really into what they do, they read about it, right? Just like doctors read medical journals or read about some new development, or a new disease coming out. They do it in their spare time, a lot of times.

 

Engineers will do the same thing. They read about topics related to their profession, and certainly this is related to their profession. And it’s almost a dark story of what happened here, what happened to try to perpetuate this official story, make people not even question it.

 

They Try to Stop the Discussion from Happening at All!

top

 

And as Roland has pointed out, again, they don’t even want to have the discussion! They go out of their way to try to stop the discussion from happening at all!

 

Now, if we were just full of it and they were just putting out a wild conspiracy theory, they could easily dismiss that they could talk about it right out in the open.

 

The fact that they’re trying to cover it up shows that they know they don’t have a leg to stand on, but they have to still defend it in some kind of a way.

 

And what’s interesting is that there’s so many people over the years, and I’ve been doing this a long time. When I first started out, Debunkers would say:

 

“Well, you only got however many architects and engineers we had at the time, (maybe 1, 500 or so) how many architects and engineers are there in America and in the greater world, even?”

 

Right? Well, number one, the only people that are doing the work of trying to educate engineers on this topic is AE911Truth!

 

Now, I think we do a pretty good job for the resources that we have.

 

But, you know, we’re not the ASE. We’re not these professional organizations with the millions of dollars and manpower and resources to be able to get the materials out there. So we have to do it one presentation at a time. Videos like this is how we do outreach.

 

[42:00]

 

Most Engineers Aren’t Even Aware That a Third Tower Fell

top

 

So we have to rely on our supporters to help us, too, and send that stuff out when they can. Send it to engineers that they know. Most engineers aren’t even aware that a third tower fell on September 11!

 

Now, even to this day, even after all of this controversy and all of this discussion, they don’t even have an opinion one way or the other about whether it was controlled demolition, because they don’t know that World Trade Center Seven exists!

 

And to me, that is a huge failure of these professional organizations, which are supposed to be leading the way for the engineering community, educating engineers, and they don’t even talk about the worst, …

 

Again, just put the whole issue of controlled demolition to the side for a moment. If you go with the official story, it’s the worst structural failure in modern history! A few random office players can bring down a steel frame high rise in 7 seconds. And most engineers don’t ever hear about it from the ASCE. They’re not studying it repeatedly over and over again to keep it from happening anymore. They just kind of put out a story and then let it die! Just didn’t want to talk about it anymore.

 

ASCE Doesn’t Want Any Discussion of WTC Building 7

top

 

What’s your comment on that role? On the fact that they haven’t really done a good job of telling people about Building Seven and most engineers don’t know about it?

 

Roland Angle: I think they don’t want to discuss it because they don’t want to discuss it!

 

In other words, they don’t want to bring it up. They don’t want people to be aware of it because it’s a very suspicious event. You’ve got a 47 story steel frame building that collapsed into its own footprint after some office fires in 7 seconds!

 

I mean, that’s a remarkable event! In structural engineering history it’s a one off! It wasn’t hit by planes. It had some minor debris damage, a few fires, and then it collapsed 7 hours later!

 

So it’s not the kind of event that they want to discuss because first of all, it piques the curiosity just to begin with, once you understand the ramifications of the event. This is something that engineers should be all over! They should be all over this event! They want to understand it in minute detail.

 

NIST – for the First and Only Time in History a Steel-Framed High-Rise was Destroyed by Routine Fire!

top

 

Instead, the story that we were given by NIST was that these routine office fires for the first and only time in history, with no other significant event, caused the collapse of a high rise steel frame building. Well, we build buildings out of steel to the high rise capacity because we don’t want them to collapse when they catch fire! That’s why we do that!

 

Now, here you have an event where the fires brought the building down in 7 seconds. Had there been anybody in the building, they, of course, would have perished. But they had evacuated the building at the time when the first two towers were hit.

 

[45:15]

 

And then some very suspicious events occurred. They said that there was no water to fight the fires. Well, that’s been proven to be false. There was plenty water to fight the fires. They said that they knew the building was going to come down. How did they know that? No other building in similar circumstances had ever come down. So they quote some engineer that told the fire department that the building was going to fall down in a few hours. Gee, that was some remarkable information coming from an engineer, who still is anonymous to this day! We have not found out if that person really existed or not. Who was it?

 

NIST Gave a Complicated Series of Rube-Goldberg Progression of Events Explanation for WTC-7

top

 

How did some engineer on the scene perceive that the building was about to collapse? When the explanation that NIST gave for actually why it collapsed was a complicated series of Rube-Goldberg progression of events where some long Beams were heated, pushed a girder off of its seat at a column, the floors collapsed, the column collapsed. It caused other columns to collapse, caused more columns to collapse, and then the whole thing came down at once. That is, frankly, unbelievable!

 

And when you look at the particular mechanics, every one of those events can be disproven and could not have happened!

 

So that’s why they don’t want to bring it up. That’s why they don’t want to discuss it. It’s easier, and the only answer they have is to say:

 

“Well, these guys are conspiracy theories!”

 

And we’re practicing engineers. We’re people that represent more than 50,000 years of engineering experience! And these are not people that are going to lightly throw away their reputation by signing a petition that they know is not going to be met in a friendly manner from the establishment.

 

These are people that know that when they sign that, they’re going to be castigated. They’re going to be punished, if possible. And many of them have. And we’re not funded by anybody. There’s nobody making money on this. We rely entirely on donations from our supporters to exist. Nobody’s getting rich off of this.

 

University of Alaska Said the NIST Report on WTC-7 Wasn’t Possible

top

 

We paid the University of Alaska at Fairbanks Structural Engineering Department something like $325,000 that we had to raise from our supporters to come up with a peer reviewed report of the Building Seven report that NIST produced. Couldn’t reproduce it. Said it wasn’t possible.

 

And the only way that the building could come down like that was to remove eight floors of columns simultaneously all throughout the building. Which is a description of what happens in controlled demolition!

 

Engineers Have Been Betrayed by Our Professional Leadership

top

 

So, yeah, we’ve been betrayed by our professional leadership. They have their reasons for doing. So they have connections with the federal government. They have contracts, they have prestigious positions. They have a lot to answer for.

 

And unfortunately, I don’t think we can rely on them to come forward spontaneously. They haven’t done so in 21 years.

 

So we’re going to have to make the record and hope that at some point in the future, sooner than later, we’re going to begin to get some answers about who was influenced, how they were influenced, and that trail can lead back up to the perpetrators.

 

[49:07]

 

Andy Steele: That’s right. You mentioned about how our supporters funded the World Trade Center Seven study out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I want someday, when this is acknowledged, when this is out there in the open and get the proper prosecutions, I’m not pessimistic. I think it’s going to happen. But I want those people who donated to that project to get some kind of tax break or whatever, because if you think about it, their tax money already went towards paying for the NIST Reports, and what they got in return was a bunch of garbage!

 

So they had to pay again just to get an accurate report on the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

 

And that’s another thing, this is a reputable engineering school, prestigious one. And now you’ve got this report out of there that completely contradicts what NIST puts out. And these professional associations just act like:

 

“Oh well, whatever, it’s nothing!”

 

But that’s a huge deal! Two different reports with two different conclusions. I mean, someone should sit down and rectify why they’re coming out with these two different conclusions, but they have no interest in doing this.

 

So we have to do the work of the government for them! And what we are doing is we’re recreating the country. We’re creating a new culture here through AE911 Truth, through the Internet. And it’s not just with this issue, but other issues as well. We are undermining the system. Nobody takes the mainstream media seriously anymore. Nobody takes the politicians seriously anymore. I don’t think anybody even respects the people in the White House, regardless of what party they’re from or out there in Congress. They’re just sort of there! They’re just sort of like we’re all kids in a school and nobody likes the principal.

 

So we’re just all sort of doing whatever we can get away with here, as long as it’s ethical and good. But we’re basically talking about these issues and bringing it out there on the Internet, and then they try to ban us or mess with the algorithms. And I don’t know how all that specifically works, but to keep messages like this out there and it’s not going to work. People are wising up and they know that there’s problems with things like September 11.

 

And I also like how you mentioned too, about supposedly this engineer on the street that is seeing that Building Seven is going to come down. And I mean, even BBC is predicting it, 20 minutes before it happens.

 

But it’s an unprecedented event and everybody’s evacuated from the building. And all of this is happening on the inside of the building. According to NIST, these Beams pushing the girder off it’s seat, is happening on the inside of the building. Nobody can see it yet. They’re predicting that this is all going to come crashing down. It doesn’t make sense on its face!

 

[51:51]

 

So here we are over 20 years later Roland, we’ve got a lot of problems going on in this country. Insane division among the political parties. We got inflation has just gone crazy! It’s like $8 for a medium cup of ice cream at the Dairy Queen right now. That’s how I measure inflation.

 

We’ve got I mean, the very first time I’ve ever been nervous about nuclear war breaking out in my entire lifetime. A lot of major issues going on, but here we are every week coming back to 9/11 Free Fall, talking about some buildings that came down back in 2001. I mean, what are we crazy or something? With all this stuff going on, why are we focusing on this still and writing books about it, not just doing the same show, but inventing new shows about it? Answer that question.

 

The Importance of 911 Truth

top

 

Why do we need to keep on beating on this, even in spite of everything that is going on elsewhere in the world? Why does it all come back down to what happened to these buildings on 9/11? And how can that set us straight as a country?

 

Roland Angle: Why do we study history? Why is there an academic department in every university that attempts to explain what happened in the past? It’s important. Unless we understand what happened in the past, we can’t understand how we got to where we are today. If we have a faulty understanding of the past, our understanding of our present circumstances will be faulty as well.

 

So that’s why we study history. The old saying:

 

“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”

 

Is an old saying, because it’s true. You have to understand what happened, or you’re going to be making the same mistakes that were made in the past. Mistakes were made in the past. Mistakes are made today. How are they related? Unless we understand?

 

Simply as professional engineers you go to school, you go to college, you go to university, they teach you subjects that are really nothing more than the compilation of all the studies and the experience of all the engineers that came before you in history. Why do they do that? Why not just start over fresh?

 

Well, the reason why they do that is because there’s a lot of lessons that were learned there. And those lessons, a lot of them were painful, and they came out of failures. And in the effort to understand those failures, studies were made, and a greater understanding of what was happening came out of that study. And then things got better.

 

[54:48]

 

The engineers that went forward from that point didn’t make those same mistakes anymore because they were trained. They knew better. That’s the process!

 

If we think that steel frame buildings can be brought down by fires, alone, and we go forward with that knowledge and that understanding, we’re going to be doing things wrong. We don’t think that’s true! We think it flies in the face of all the reasons why engineers built steel frame buildings out of steel. If that isn’t true, we’ve got a real problem.

 

And unfortunately, right now, our professional organizations are turning a blind eye to this contradiction. And we can’t allow that. As painful as it might be, as difficult as it might be to understand what really happened, we’ve got to face it! If we don’t face it, there’s more pain ahead.

 

When You Run Away and Hide Your Head in the Sand, Things Only Get Worse

top

 

And literally, 9/11 opened the 21st century, and it seems as if it’s a century that seems to be bound up in one catastrophe after the other. If it’s not financial, it’s political, it’s military, it’s technological. We have so many problems, we’ve got to deal with them. And we’re not going to deal with them by hiding from the truth, no matter how painful it might be, unfortunately. It would be nice if we could run away and stick our head in the sand and everything would just turn out fine. But that’s not the way things work. When you run away and hide your head in the sand, things only get worse.

 

So that’s what we’re doing. That’s why we call it Project Due Diligence. We’re doing our due diligence. And we’re doing our best to bring that word to our professional colleagues and to the public at large. And hopefully we can come to some sort of an understanding that we have to reinvestigate this matter. It’s not a dead historical issue. It affects our future and it has affected our present.

 

Andy Steele: Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but the book is called Engineering the 9/11 Cover-up: How the World Trade Center Evidence was Kept Secret from the World. We’ll be talking a lot about that in the next coming months and year. And of course, we’ll make that available when it’s finished and be sharing that far and wide. Roland, thank you for doing Project Due Diligence, taking up this project and of course, coming on 9/11 Free Fall today.

 

Roland Angle: It’s been my honor, Andy, to work with all of you and all the other engineers and the researchers that have collected this information and made this record, and we’re going to take it now and make a hard copy out of it so that we can use it going forward.

 

[57:55]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/12/2023 = 186)

@qwerty90615
3 months ago
Brave and ethical engineers, voicing reasonable concerns, at great personal risk.
24

@jacobnichols4907
3 months ago
After 9/11 I trust no one. I was 21 on that day now I’m 42 with 2 kids 9 &13. I home school and did a whole 2 week lesson on false flags.
64

8 replies

@raymondjames5035
3 months ago
The Hearst newspaper chain started the Spanish-American War to grow readership.
9

@1DaTJo
3 months ago
Your kids are going to be such great adults!
11

@12TwoHit12ThreeHit
3 months ago
Great comment, sir! I was sitting in a university Chemistry class when I got the news. I’m 43 now. One of the strangest “facts” that always stuck out to me (besides building 7 falling due to sporadic office fires) was an FBI agent finding one of the hijacker’s passports, undamaged, on the sidewalk. That, along with all the put options placed on the airlines, reeks of an inside job. I have zero faith in our Alphabet agencies now, and it’s sad I have to say that. Have a good one!
12

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7

Antonio Garmsci
3 weeks ago
I became a Federal Marshal after that day!
1

@growthandunderstanding
3 weeks ago
Bravo and awesome! You children are fortunate to have you as a parent!

@strongfoot2009
3 months ago
An excellent job folks: continue doing what is right.
36

@StressMats
3 months ago
I was 8 years old when this happened and can remember the day, setting and reactions of the people I were around. I even remember my dad which is a clever engineer replaying the fall and telling me that it is impossible. He was inside one of the buildings earlier the same year.
25

1 reply

@garybryson1900
3 months ago
To keep people quiet you offer them money AND you threaten them. I’m sure that is what has happened.
34

5 replies

@747fa
3 months ago
I tend to think it is the fear factor that is very persuasive in regard to 9/11.
8

@kindGSL
3 months ago
Plus the Epstein blackmail machine.

@louislemire6691
3 weeks ago
My theory is that they weren’t in the loop. They did what the were told, no questions asked.

@garybryson1900
3 weeks ago
@louislemire6691 That’s probably true of some people.

@gregharrison3289
3 months ago
Everyone’s local obituaries silently speak of a horrible crime that’s been committed & is still ongoing.
Engineering leadership failure in part begot medical leadership failure.
17

@irukandji2246
3 months ago
great to see your esteemed org still uploading videos!
16

@EJ-74
3 months ago
Thanks for exposing the truth 🙏
27

@-LightningRod-
3 months ago
We need Good LEADERS,…
LEADERS like Roland Angle.
Your attempt to shine light on an anomaly will illuminate much more than a simple failure of your organization’s Leadership shortcomings.
I am grateful for Your efforts and the choice to share this information.
10

@dietrichwecker942
3 months ago
Excellent work, thank you guys!
11

@aprilholton1150
2 months ago
My heart goes out to everyone affected by this horror, which is a lot of people!! God bless you for your tenacity and efforts in getting the truth out. Some will never see it, some already know and some may wake up someday. One thing I know, God knows the truth and the ones responsible will face justice on judgement day! I wish we could see justice here in our lifetime but it is doubtful. God bless you all to overcome till the end
3

@streetwisepioneers4470
3 months ago
You guys are phenomenal!
8

@lionelfischer8240
3 months ago
Thank you from France. We also paid here for the liers through assurances fees. Billions of dollars stolen from so many companies…
8

@h2opower
3 months ago
For me I am tired of those in high places getting away with murder and other high crimes and misdemeanors. If it were you or me behind these demolitions of the buildings we’d have a jail named after us by now. Because of these events over 1 million people died and even more have been affected by those events in a negative way. Since murder has no statute of limitations those responsible need to be brought to justice.
10

4 replies

@Frannie12
3 months ago
As you probably know, it didn’t start on that day. Great book (yes it’s long) called JFK and the Unspeakable by Douglass…..same patterns, a legacy within our institutions.
2

@clinteranovic8075
2 months ago
There was no controlled demolition. That is a stupid idea. You know why it’s a stupid idea? Because it would be a stupid idea to do it, or even consider doing or even coming up with the idea of doing it. It’s a stupid idiotic idea that would never work, that could never be hidden or covered up, besides the fact that it would be a pointless idiotic idea to do it in the first place. Roland Angle and all these other people though don’t consider that. They think they don’t have to.

@jonhjlundarnfred3248
2 months ago (edited)
​ @clinteranovic8075 Ok, then let’s consider it for a while. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of someone or a group of individuals who would consider doing such a thing. Whether it’s a stupid idea (and hence not to be done) is proportionally related to what we estimate we are to gain from doing it, it’s overall implications, and our abilities to carry out the action. Strictly speaking whether an action is “worth” the risk depends on the outcome, and therefore indirectly our ability to control the outcome. So what might look completely idiotic from one perspective, may be very rational for us (in a cold calculated sense), it solely depends on our objectives and resources.
A cascade of events in world history followed this event, and someone stood to benefit from these events. So for someone it might have been “worth” doing. In regards to the ability to cover something up, many people who believe it was a controlled demolition don’t think that the evidence is well covered, but in plein open sight. Our goal in such a case is not to cover it up completely, but to cover it up sufficiently. Today most people probably don’t think it was a controlled demolition, but again most people haven’t looked that deeply into it.
3

@danhumphrey5755
3 months ago
Larry Fink, Larry Silverstein, Dick Cheney, the Bush crime family, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Rumsfeld, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX…
18

2 replies

@thesoundsmith
3 months ago
A list of targets? Good job.

@jairoacosta2894
3 months ago
“The truth is the truth, even when it is too painful. If we not know the truth, to correct the error we are to repeat it..”
7

1 reply

@thesoundsmith
3 months ago
Well, i think THIS one is pretty safe from a repeat.

@martyalmberg9317
3 months ago
Great job! you guys are determined.
3

@Turdfergusen382
3 months ago
Good luck with the new show. Thanks for the time Roland. Keep carrying the torch forward.
2

@buckmaster7185
3 months ago
Here is another fact that y’all do not report about, which is both a mitigation against the official pretext and motive. Most girders were fireproofed by asbestos and the cost to remediate was prohibitive. Instead, they made $Billions from insurance and let the citizens of New York suffer with chronic, if not ultimately fatal mesothelioma.
12

2 replies

@CinemaStudies1
3 months ago
I’m glad Roland is at the helm now … a brilliant guy.
7

@raymondjames5035
3 months ago
In Sept 2016 Lloyd’s of London filed suit against the Saudi royal family for the planes lost in 9/11. It was quickly settled so the evidence was never exposed.
9

1 reply

@davepowell7168
3 months ago (edited)
15 years ‘quickly’..
1

@waynedaves5089
3 months ago
Yes, that’s the point. We have to investigate who said the building was coming down? Great work as always. naming names is a must
1

@tdc8795
3 months ago
How many building codes changed due to the 9/11 event? Aren’t all steel framed buildings now at risk for total collapse because of fire?
20

2 replies

@thesoundsmith
3 months ago
If NIST were correct…
3

@russellherdson5763
1 month ago
Roland is the right man for this job. Respect.

@ShillDozer
3 months ago
“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.”
Maurice Samuel
10

1 reply

@TNG_Klingons
3 months ago
🤣😆
1

@FreeCorps1984
3 months ago
Recently watched Seven and this is a great follow up. Gonna try to pass it along
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
A discussion has started in the comments that perhaps Andy and Roland would like to give their views
on.
This 90 second video shows the collapse zone in wtc2 and illustrates the point in question:

The question is, can we really expect that the falling section of the buildings would neatly align with the standing section, so that core columns would land back on core columns, and wall panels land on wall panels?
Or is the possibility that core columns and wall panels would be pushed sideways, while cross bracing structures would be loaded vertically rather than horizontally?
All comments welcome

@PuffensPuffens
3 months ago (edited)
YES! This must be the Crime of the Century! “Pull it down” -Larry S
4

@chineechik
3 months ago
One of the better videos produced
1

@mikeklassic78
3 months ago
Funny I was just talking this with a coworker….they said ” oh that was a long time ago”…an folks wonder why were currently goin to hell in a hand basket!
4

1 reply

@psikeyhackr6914
3 months ago
I searched the NCSTAR1 report for ‘concrete’. It appeared more than 3,000 times though less than 4,000. I read every paragraph using concrete. The NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers though sources before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards for both towers.
Those previous sources report 200,000 tons of steel with which the NIST agrees. So why is there agreement on the steel but not the concrete? That concrete would have to affect the collapse time if it was just mass impacting mass because of the conservation of momentum.
7

3 replies

@qwerty90615
3 months ago (edited)
The pulverization of the concrete, reportedly extreme in its totality, represents a quantity of energy consumed during the destruction. How does this compare to the officially recognized potential energy of the purely gravity-driven destruction? That potential energy is the integral of mgh. Both of these quantities it appears are easily determined within a margin of error.
I pity the present engineering professors who must face inquiring young minds, and dare not speak truth.

@Interdiction
3 months ago
@qwerty90615 I have ZERO pity for anyone who does not tell the truth
1

@qwerty90615
3 months ago
@Interdiction Truth absolutists tend toward self-deceit. This is an observation confirmed in many aspects of human activity. An engineering professor who did what Professor Hulsey was able to do is extremely rare. I deeply admire him.
1

@davidmudry5622
3 months ago
Steel Can’t Change Its Role
The steel components in a building are there to make up the support that prevents collapse, but here NIST tells us that the steel changed its role from preventing a collapse to one of abetting a collapse. NIST is crazy.
NIST FAQ 31 Answer:-
” Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
6

6 replies

@davidmudry5622
2 months ago
@clinteranovic8075 When your head goes upward and hits the steel column that is standing still in mid air, it will kill you. When 95 floors with its massive inertia goes upward into the upper 15 floors of much less inertia, who wins? NIST wants you to believe that the inertia from above took the inertia from below to use as its own. LOL https://youtu.be/MxE8N5IAFWg

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7

@davidmudry5622
2 months ago
@TheMountainGoat The WTC buildings closest to the twin towers, WTC 3-4-5-6, were heavily damaged and were roaring infernos, but none suffered total collapse. The Deutsche Bank building suffered more damage than building 7 did since it was closer to the south tower than building 7 was to the north tower.

@Blue-qr7qe
3 months ago
Thank you, Mr. Angle –
3

@sladwig4094
3 months ago (edited)
47 interior columns x 4 connections per column x 110 floors = 20,000 bolted and/or welded connections.
5” deep concrete floors x 110 levels high can be visualized as a solid block of concrete 45 feet tall and almost as long and wide as a football field. Somehow this mass of concrete turned into dust before it hit the ground.
3

2 replies

@organboi
3 months ago
True. You can see it turning ans churning into dust before hitting the ground.

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
What percentage of it turned into dust before it hot the ground?

@LuigiTrapanese
3 months ago
Can we get Corbett on this show?
10

1 reply

@LuigiTrapanese
3 months ago
Also Mazzucco, the author of “9 11 new pearl harbor”
7

@Frannie12
3 months ago
Interesting comment about precedent. Turning point was 11/22/63 in Dallas.
4

1 reply

@kindGSL
3 months ago
We have had so many. When you study the history, you see it is a string of them one after another. They just keep doing them over and over.
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
7. 43 mins Talking about building 7 Roland says ; “I don’t think they want to discus, because they don’t wish to discuss it.” A few minutes later he said that it is the kind of event that piques the curiosity. He then says this “Is something engineers should be all over.”
Will you be presenting any videos about Building 5 and Building 6 in the future?
Do these partial collapses pique your curiosity?
Do AE9/11Truth believe the partial collapses were caused by fires or demolition explosion?

@jerryplenda381
3 months ago
Philip Zelikow managed the 911 commission information.
6

@mikebyrd8278
2 months ago
So how did your supposed explosives cause the exterior walls to be pulled inward moments before the building collapsed??
How did they put explosives exactly where the Jets hit???
How did the explosives survive the impact of the Jets and the fire???

@davidmudry5622
3 months ago
Kissinger turned 100 today lucky Larry turns 92 in 3 days
7

1 reply

@TNG_Klingons
3 months ago
I suspect the towers were wired to 💥 well before Larry’s purchase and insurance policy.
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
Andy and Roland, I think that you are well justified in expecting other organisations to be open and honest, and to expect them to be prepared to answer questions of a technical nature.
The cost of this is of course that AE9/11Truth also take that approach.
So for example (21m30s) you Roland raise the issue of witnesses reporting explosions, and of recordings of explosions.
In return may I ask you to make a compilations of the recordings so we can judge for ourselves. I have watched many without hearing any explosions, the video from the Hudson river has good sound quality, so you might start with that one.
Also will you explain why the survivors in stairwell B didn’t report any explosions despite apparently being in close proximity to the one listed as registering 2.3 on the Richter scale ?
Also why the vast majority of those interviewed did not report hearing any explosions, or using language ‘indicative of hearing’ explosions?
With thanks,
Simon
3

25 replies

@davidmudry5622
3 months ago
Steel Can’t Change Its Role
The steel components in a building are there to make up the support that prevents collapse, but here NIST tells us that the steel changed its role from preventing a collapse to one of abetting a collapse. NIST is crazy.
NIST FAQ 31 Answer:-
” Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
2

@noelleleger232
3 months ago
The term inertia comes from the Latin word iners meaning idle, referring to the amount of resistance an object has to a change in its velocity.
The INERTIA of the top 14 floors, being constructed for obvious reasons out of the thinnest steel in the tower, then collapses onto the 96 floors below that are constructed out of heavier stronger thicker steel (like a pyramid from top to bottom if you will) and the lower 96 floors would therefore have a lot more INERTIA than the top 14 floors. The idea that NIST says the small INERTIA above kept getting larger while the large INERTIA below kept getting smaller, is just laughable.
NIST WTC FAQ 31 ” As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
@noelleleger232 I don’t always believe what NIST have to say, but if the falling elements of the upper floors, break apart the material at the top of the towers, releasing those to fall, then the amount of material falling will increase. Do you agree?

@noelleleger232
3 months ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 I disagree. Anything falling has to meet resistance. The forces in those collisions will be equal, hammer hits nail & nail removes energy from the hammer.
1

@kindGSL
3 months ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 My favorite video of 9/11 is a short clip where you can actually see the spires of broken columns turn into dust and evaporate. It is the most amazing thing ever. Evaporating steel. Wow, I wonder how that happened. It was not glowing, just turning into dust. When a tower of dominos falls, NONE of them are destroyed.

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
@kindGSL I am aware of the footage and the claim that steel was turned to dust.
I don’t think that the thermite and high explosive model espoused by AE9/11T agrees that this happened, it seems more of claim by those who believe in the directed energy weapon model. Is that your view of it?
What do you think caused the steel to turn to dust?
Also what kind of dust? Steel dust?
Simon

@simonthorneycroft1339
3 months ago
@kindGSL Maybe a couple of things to consider if you think that steel core columns were turned to dust:
What was supporting the core columns just prior to them collapsing and why were the structures holding them up not affected by whatever was turning the columns you could see into dust?
The dust created by the collapse was analysed – what did the analysis show in terms of steel dust?
Has the mechanism used to turn the steel to dust subsequently (20 years later) been used in other industries or weapons systems?
If a steel beam is covered in dust, and then falls along its own axis, will it leave a trail of dust in the air where the column was previously standing?
If steel dust is as dense as steel, how long would it remain in the air?

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
@kindGSL Do you have an explanation as to how the steel core columns turned to dust, and what the dust was made of?

@nunyabisnis1448
2 months ago
Bobby Mcelveen ,Geoff Campbell, what happened to those guys ?
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
@nunyabisnis1448 I don’t know, what did happen to them?

@alwagner9722
2 months ago
​ @simonthorneycroft1339 your analogy is comparing the wtc tower to a stack of dominoes?
Let’s try this; you build a scaled down replica of North tower, say 20 ft. high.
With every bit of the structure scaled down precisely. Then you cut off the top 15 floors above the so called damaged area. That top portion is then raised 10 ft in the air and dropped on top of the existing, undamaged part.
You really think that top section is going to crush and pulverize the rest of the building?
Keep in mind, the actual collapse didn’t have the benefit of the top portion lifting up above the tower. It just sat there, somehow gave out, crushing pulverizing the tower, according to NIST, “essentially at free fall.”
1

@simonthorneycroft1339
2 months ago
@alwagner9722 An interesting question.
Firstly, neither the North or South Towers collapsed essentially at Freefall according to David Chandler’s calculations, they fell at 66% of freefall.
Putting that aside, let us take away the big drop you describe, and try this;
Imagine from your model above that you build the model up to the 87th floor, then in a slightly random pattern build up sections of the next 5 floors with material that is half the strength it should be to mimic the floors weekend by the fires.
Then with the upper section of the building do the same kind of thing with the structure upside down, so that when you turn it over the two sections more or less match up.
Then you lift up the top section and turn it the right way up over the bottom section.
You then lower this sections until it is almost touching the bottom section, and misalign the two sections very slightly to allow for the fact that the building as heated unevenly, the steel might have expanded, shrunk, twisted or folded when softened by the heat.
Would that be a fair starting point for your experiment?

@alwagner9722
2 months ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 that was kind of a gobbledygook theoretical scenario.
I was implying that even if you were to pick up the top section and drop it on top of the rest of the building, you or anyone else would see the logical scenario that it would be impossible to crush/ pulverize and turn the majority of the building and almost all of its office contents into a pyroclastic flow, like that of a volcano, see? Where’s the momentum/ forces / energy coming from, since it’s just a “progressive gravitational collapse”? I’m no expert but you appear to be in denial- or your cognitive dissonance is clouding your reality.
As for rate of collapse goes, I’m just going by NIST’S own words. Though I do admire Chandler’s work, as far as the 9/11 truth movement goes, especially with WTC 7.

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7 – You are being fooled.

@russellhodin1382
2 weeks ago
@simonthorneycroft1339 , obviously the domino tower is not falling at anything resembling a free-fall rate, in contrast to Buildings 1, 2 and 7, which did so for a portion of their collapse, a physical impossibility and at odds with your physics explanation

@davidmudry5622
2 weeks ago
NIST Oxymoron?
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show…
”Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance the building section above came down essentially in free fall*, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further *increasing the demand on the floors below.”
Essentially in free fall = LESS DEMAND on the floors below. https://youtu.be/pwx12kwgOAM?t=338

@ClaudioMarty911
3 months ago
Thank you.
4

@DorksterJr
3 months ago
C’mon, Morty, that was decades ago now. We’re on the same team. What’s good for the Rick is good for the Morty. Trust in the trickle.

@redroseofsummer2979
3 months ago
What date is the book being released ?

@jamesdunn1434
3 months ago
The Yinon Plan of 1982 , The Greater Israel Project and PNAC
6

@johnbelden-br3hw
3 months ago
I saw Michael c Ruppert speak in grass valley ca and he was talking about Paul wellstones plane being brought down
2

@miket8250
3 months ago
Covered? You mean committed. Where did the Gold go?
3

@rezakarampour6286
3 months ago
‘ Solving 9-11 By Christopher Bollyn . ‘
28

6 replies

@chadthunderjock6520
3 months ago
Everyone should read that book. To my knowledge no one in the 911 truth movement has never acknowledged that book.
13

@DWayne-fk9rp
3 months ago
Here’s a link to his audiobook, Solving 911.

9

@mtm4a
3 months ago
@rezakarampour6286 – There’s a handful of people who consistently and endlessly provide this bare title and name of author under most AE911Truth uploads, but they express no opinion themselves. Are they being paid to publicise a book… or is it perhaps a video?
We already know that Christopher Bollyn provides helpful insight into the 9/11 story – his talks have been available on YouTube for years.
3

@kindGSL
3 months ago (edited)
@chadthunderjock6520 I do. I have seen him at 9/11 events in person. What there is is a competition about who is at fault for 9/11. Some people want to say Israel was involved and others refuse to accept that idea. I am one who thinks nukes were used, so pretty much no one is on my side of the argument.
2

@kindGSL
3 months ago
@mtm4a You already know about him, but for any new-by just trying to figure it out Christopher Bollyn is the absolutely BEST source to understand what happened, and not one you will ever find if no one tells you to look for him specifically.
2

@christopheklinger3217
3 months ago
I saw recently on Youtube people from PNAC (Project for aNew American Century) having a video. Comments were not allowed.
1

@FreeCorps1984
3 months ago
Lotta misinformation knocked down by Roland. Don’t need to have an engineering degree to understand that part of this. The movie Seven helps too
1

@K4ReeL187
3 months ago
52:19 why focus on events from 20 years ago…
people need to know the truth so they can proactively stop these type of events re-occurring
4

@jophoenix3919
2 months ago
I AM ILL-EDUCATED IN THE ENGINEERING FIELD, BUT THAT SAID I CAN FELLOW ENGINEERS FACRS, I WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE AND KNEW IT LIKE A PALNED DEMOLITION. THE FACTS DO NOT COME CLOSE TO ADDING UP AS TO WHY THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESERVED BUT SHIPPED TO CHINA?

@bettymobley763
3 months ago
Andy’s 😴
1

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago
Is the evidence there for people to see the thruth? Yes. Is the evidence coming from mostly engineers, firefighters and pilots? Yes.
So why don’t people believe? Because they don’t want to.
You have to deal with that first before you can show them the facts.
1

3 replies

@kindGSL
3 months ago
It is the same reason why people don’t want to believe people who claim to be sexually abused. Dealing with it is just too difficult.
1

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago (edited)
@kindGSL good point. I think it’s important to realize. What we believe doesn’t always line up with the facts. But it’s what we can emotionally handle.

@nunyabisnis1448
2 months ago
cognitive dissonance , and its easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled!

@JohnDoe-rp3mx
10 days ago
Please enhance your sound

@bubblegumKUSH
3 months ago
#ednacintron

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago
Can we please. Please. Get a new interviewer.? Andy steel might be a nice guy but he is not helping your cause by being the face of the 9/11 truth movement.
1

1 reply

@CreigerMcGreger
3 months ago
It doesn’t matter how many facts you have. I can’t recommend these videos to anyone.

@geminijune5173
2 months ago
Remember the dancing Israelis

1 reply

@clinteranovic8075
2 months ago
Remember the dancing Palestinians…
1

@raymondjames5035
3 months ago
The demolition crew was getting paid at the accounting office when the missile hit the Pentagon…. Lose ends.
4

2 replies

@mancuniancandidatem
3 months ago (edited)
I think the “art students” who were living in the towers layed the explosives. They are even photographed in the towers in a room full of boxes that are labeled as fuse switches, of a type that are used in demolition.

Antonio Garmsci
3 weeks ago
You guys have NO idea how to organize!!!!

@TheMountainGoat
2 months ago
WHAT exactly happened to ALL 7 buildings with a WTC prefix on Sept 11, 2001?
The following points need to be made regarding what exactly happened to the building and the observable evidence at ground zero, that the “9/11 truth movement” never touch on…
1. Building 3 (Marriot Hotel) – 14 Survivors – It was a 22-story building – 90% of that building completely went away, all the way to ground level and the 10% of it that was still standing (about 3 floors of the stub left standing) is where these 14 people survived.
2. Building 4 – 9 stories – 75% of it, also went away – all the way to ground level – Poof gone. There was virtually no rubble on this building, except for a small remnant of the building.
3. Building 5 – 9 stories – Had cylindrical holes in it, 24 feet wide, that went all the way to ground level. Once again, virtually no falling debris ended up on top of this building.
4. Building 6 – 8 stories – Had the middle of it scooped out, all the way to ground level as well as 13 cylindrical holes, 24 feet in diameter on the edges and close to the scooped-out centre of the building and all these holes went down to ground level. The centre hole in this building had MINIMAL RUBBLE inside it, it was virtually EMPTY!
5. Building 7 – 47 stories or 4 and a half Titanic’s’ stacked on top of one another – Was frothing away the whole day until just the outer skin of the building was left and at 5:20pm SILENTLY fell into its own footprint, it left the seismic reading of just 0.6 on the Richter scale, equal to just 2 stories hitting the ground.
6. The Twin Towers – 16 Survivors (“9/11 surfer” included) – 110 stories, equal to 10 Titanic’s in weight, stacked on top of one another. The survivors heard no loud explosions, no flashes of bright light, no molten steel raining on them, they did not go blind or deaf due to light flashes or explosions, they weren’t hit by falling debris – POOF they are gone into a HUGE DUST cloud. The seismic readings were that of a 20 and 16 story building hitting the ground respectively – Why was it so low?
7. Bankers Trust Building – (Across the street from the WTC complex) Was heavily damaged and rebuilt, just to be completely taken apart 5 years later due some lingering aftereffects affecting the structure of the steel in the building. Show me how a building that was not hit by a plane, had no office fires, because something affects the steel in the building?
Why has the 9/11 truther movement been “distracting” from all these points and why would the main talking heads, Richard Gage and AE911Truth, only be focussing on WTC 7 for the last 8 years, ignoring everything I’ve pointed out and never discuss the lack of seismic reading for WTC 7 hitting the ground? If you believe the official government narrative that it is all due to some jet fuel and office fires, then you have some serious problems in your thinking.
Has the 9/11 “truther” movement forgotten about ALL 7 WTC buildings that had massive anomalies that don’t fit the NIST Report and the “9/11 truth” movement’s THEORIES regarding “controlled demolition”, squib explosives, nukes, or mini nukes?
Can’t the 9/11 “truther” movement count past 3?
8 x Buildings were affected, why only focus on those three for the last 14 years?
Why have they not intensely investigated the observable evidence that was left at the crime scene that was ground zero?
the 9/11 “truther” movement keep on asking for an “independent forensic study” of WHAT happened at the WTC complex, when such an “independent forensic study” has been done and the EVIDENCE was submitted as high up as the Supreme court of America, via a Qui-Tam case against NIST and the subcontractors who wrote the NIST Report, for SCIENCE FRAUD, way back in 2009!
If this court case was heard and not illegally dismissed by the judge, the governmental subcontractors with links to advanced weaponry, who were tasked with the secured clean-up operations at ground zero and tasked with helping to write the FRAUDULENT NIST Report, these companies would have been DEPOSED back in 2009 already!
14 years of theories by the “9/11 truth” movement have been regurgitated to a point of exhaustion and it is currently turning into a waste of time, as they aren’t bringing anything new to the table.
Why does the 9/11 “truther” movement censor anyone who brings this up and why is the 9/11 “truther” movement keeping mum about this 2009 Qui-Tam case?
Are we not searching for truth about WHAT happened to those buildings with a WTC prefix?
Time for the 9/11 “truther” movement to stop focussing on just 3 buildings, when indeed there was MAJOR anomalies with 8 BUILDINGS!
Why aren’t you talking about the 9/11 orphans, Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?
Why not discuss the anomalous Banker’s Trust building, that was repaired, just to be dismantled a few years later due to the integrity of the steel that was waning? What does that?
I suggest anyone wanting to investigate the 9/11 orphans, to have a look for the documentary “9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality” and decide for yourself what the agenda of the 9/11 “truther” movement and really is. Also look for the documentary series “9/11 The Essential guide” which you can also find on this Odysee channel. – @911revisited:7

@coolk3dat754
3 months ago (edited)
Direct energy of some sort
1

2 replies

@organboi
3 months ago
Agreed. This is no normal demolition. Nor thermite. Why was “smoke” pouring out of Building 7 on one entire side from top to bottom well before it demolished.

@mariol8735
3 months ago
#911TruthNow 👍 👍 👍
3

1 reply

@mean7429
3 months ago
Thank you.
2

 

==========================

 

See Also

top

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

============================================

 

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 8,462

• Total words in post = 17,945
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Wed, Sep 13, 2023 — Updated See Also links.

Version 1: Tue, Sep 12, 2023 — Published post. Includes Youtube comments (186).