The Implosion Of Building 7 Remains The Irrefutable ‘Smoking Gun’ Of A 9/11 Inside Job
A four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse has concluded that it would have been impossible for the building to collapse simply as a result of office fires.
What would it mean to our collective consciousness to finally have the truth brought out about 9/11?
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth began their public awareness campaign into the inconsistencies of the official 9/11 narrative, not long after the sanctioned three-year scientific and technical cover-up from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was released. When they started their campaign, they decided to make the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 the focus of their limited financial and human resources.
And rightly so, since this collapse seemed to provide the most straightforward, common-sense illustration that some of the events that occurred in New York City on September 11th, 2001 were orchestrated by insiders and planned well in advance. This aligns with the belief that 9/11 was perpetrated, at least in part, in order to create a pretext for military retaliation, “like a new Pearl Harbor,” as the manifesto for the neoconservative Project for the New American Century put it.
Still, since very little mainstream coverage of 9/11 even touched on the destruction of Building 7, and the NIST report gave little explanation into the actual reasons that Building 7 came done other than that it was caused by office fires, many citizens were not even aware that a 3rd building, one that had not been hit by planes, had been destroyed that day. And so the first order of business for A&E for 9/11 Truth was to make people aware of Building 7, as the billboard below demonstrates.
Having spent some time making people aware of Building 7, they then went on a course of action to try to demonstrate that the building could have only come down as a result of a controlled demolition.
Their latest effort was to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
Part Of The Plan That Went Wrong?
The dramatic thrust about 9/11 that is always the undercurrent of the mainstream narrative goes as follows: “Middle Eastern highjackers piloted American planes with American passengers into American buildings, killing thousands of Americans, so let’s make them pay!” As a support for this narrative, however, the destruction of Building 7 a full 7 hours later is at best anticlimactic. In fact, a closer examination of the evidence surrounding Building 7 begins to erode the entire narrative, and start us questioning whether the whole scene really played out the way we are being told.
If, as seems to be a growing consensus now, that all 3 buildings had been prepared for controlled demolitions in order to advance the narrative above, then perhaps Building 7, too, was meant to be hit by a plane. As it turns out, its demolition 7 hours later appears to have been damage control for a part of the plan that went wrong. By that time, word was getting out on the ground that Building 7 was going to be taken down. Reports came to journalists and other onlookers from law enforcement officers, the fire department and others that the building was going to be taken down, and that people should leave the area.
The video below provides compelling testimony of this, since it is from a collection of people who were there as it was happening, and with no particular agenda other than to say what they were told, what they heard, or what they saw.
NIST Strikes Back
With growing pressure to justify their scant explanation of the collapse of Building 7 in their original report, NIST undertook their own study and when it had completed in 2009 they tried to double down on their explanation that the building had indeed collapsed in its own footprint due to office fires. Here is their ‘explanation’ of how a steel-framed tower completely collapsed as a result of office fires FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY:
“World Trade Center 7 collapsed because of fires. We really have a new kind of progressive collapse we have discovered here which is a fire-induced progressive collapse. In fact we have shown for the first time that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”
So they are actually acknowledging that this has never been seen before, but that they have somehow used the available video and architectural evidence to ‘prove’ that this could happen. Of course, the technical explanation given is not something the average person can dispute without some engineering background. But many have argued that NIST have been unwilling to release enough details of the simulation to allow for independent verification. For those with engineering backgrounds, a comparison between the details released in the UAF study and the one released by NIST would likely be revealing.
Suffice it to say, the suggestion that anybody in law enforcement, security, or the fire department would have heard about and told people that the building would have to be brought down, even if only one of the many claims was considered reliable, would be enough to bring down the entire NIST narrative, since they could never admit that someone had the means to bring the building down at that point. Unsurprisingly, they have never addressed these claims.
Joe Martino digs more deeply into this matter in this video on CETV, and in particular helps us to understand how to process information that leads us away from public mainstream perception, as well as how to share it with others:
Today, many who continue to cling to the official narrative of 9/11 are having trouble facing the cognitive dissonance caused by a challenge to their comfortable and familiar worldview. It is incumbent upon those who have broken through this barrier to accept this and acknowledge these difficulties if we are to eventually reach the truth as a collective.
June 6, 2020