En août 2002, l’Institut national de normalisation SDRA et Technology (NIST) a lancé ce qui deviendra une enquête de six ans sur les échecs des trois bâtiments le 11 septembre 2001 (9-11): les effondrements bien connus des tours Twin Du World Trade Center (WTC) le matin, et le moins connu qui s’est effondré en fin d’après-midi, la tour de commerce mondiale de 47 étages “Centre Building 7”, qui, d’autre part, n’a pas été frappé par un avion.

Le général Albert N. Stubblebine III déclare que le 11 septembre était un «travail à l’intérieur» et peut prouver qu’aucun avion n’a touché le Pentagone.
“Il n’y avait pas d’avion qui ait touché le Pentagone car nous aimerions croire”. Son analyse et ses révélations dans une interview détaillée. 

En effet, ni avant ni depuis le 9-11, les incendies ont provoqué l’effondrement d’une structure en acier de haute altitude – ni aucun autre événement naturel en dehors, à l’exception du tremblement de terre de Mexico en 1985, qui a renversé un bâtiment administratif de 21 étages. Sinon, le seul phénomène capable de provoquer l’effondrement complet des bâtiments est une procédure dite de «démolition contrôlée», où des explosifs ou d’autres dispositifs sont utilisés pour provoquer une structure délibérément.

September 11, 2001: No planes in the towers? One of the most interesting and well-researched theses on the subject is the documentary I am sending here with an excerpt with French subtitles. These are chapters 6, 7 and 8 of Ace Baker’s film “9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera”, which shows that no aircraft crashed in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center at New York and they mysteriously disappeared in steel and concrete constructions.

Although the NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that the three collapses were mainly due to fires, fifteen years later, an increasing number of architects, engineers and scientists are still not convinced by this explanation.

Note: Although the deception of September 11, 2001 has been scientifically and unanimously demonstrated, people will prefer the version of the bearded with a kalachnikov hidden in a cave, it is more romantic

Europhysics News is not a site that the media could call “complotist” and that’s the problem. It is a renowned magazine of the European physics community held by the European Physical Society.

Their objective is to provide physicists of all levels, from students with a higher degree to senior managers working in industry as well as in the public service, a broad spectrum on the scientific and organizational aspects of physics and related disciplines, in Europe. Articles of synthesis, articles on advanced topics, new reports and fields of general interest are published.

The authors of the report are Steven Jones (former Physics Professor at Brigham Young University), Robert Korol (Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering at McMaster University in Ontario and a graduate of The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the Canadian Institute of Engineering.

His main research interests were in structural mechanics and steel structures), Anthony Szamboti (mechanical design engineer with more than 25 years of experience in the field of structural design design in aerospace and The communications industry) and Ted Walter (Director of Strategy and Development for Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth, AE911Truth), a non-profit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

First, as mentioned above, the authors recall that never before nor after September 11 a skyscraper with a steel structure had completely collapsed as a result of a fire. One would like to make us believe that this exploit happened three times the same day in the same place. The only reason for these collapses would be controlled demolition. The report explains why a fire can not produce the fall of such a building:

1) The lamps do not pass hot and do not last long enough in a given area to generate enough energy to heat the important structural elements up to the point of rupture.

2) Most skyscrapers have fire extinguishing systems that prevent a fire from releasing enough energy to heat the steel to a critical failure condition.

(3) Structural elements shall be protected by fireproofing materials, which shall be designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified periods of time; and

4) Steel skyscrapers are designed to be highly redundant in their structures. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, this does not lead to a collapse of the entire structure.

Throughout history, three steel skyscrapers are known to have undergone partial collapses due to fires; None have led to a total collapse. Numerous other skyscrapers have experienced large and long-lasting fires without undergoing partial and even less total collapse.

John Skilling, chief engineer of the towers, asserted after the attacks of 93 that the towers had been built to withstand the impact of airliners and that the only way to destroy the building would be a controlled demolition.

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation with a serious scientific method should have assumed controlled demolition, if not a start. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study before the NIST investigation) began with the pre-determined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. The nine-month FEMA survey concluded by saying: “The peculiarities of the fires in the WTC 7 and how they caused the collapse of the building remain unknown at the moment. Although the total amount of diesel fuel on the scene was a huge energy potential, the best hypothesis has a low probability of occurrence. “NIST, for its part, had to postpone the publication of its report on WTC 7 initially scheduled for mid-2005 to November 2008. Until March 2006, NIST lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was Quoted as saying, “I really do not know. We struggled to get a conclusion on Building No. 7. ”

The Europhysics News report also recalls that the NIST model does not correspond to what can be seen in the videos, including the first 2.25 seconds in free fall, which is still eight stories.

11 September The new Pearl Harbor: This exceptional documentary by director Massimo Mazzucco proves that Bin Laden has nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001, and he proves that it is a coup mounted by the Bush / Mossad / Saudi Arabia. It also responds to our critics who are regularly invited to the media and whose arguments may seem convincing to those who do not take the time to study them.

While the NIST attempted to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so for the twin towers. According to NIST’s own statement, “The objective of the investigation was focused on the sequence of events from the moment of impact of the aircraft to the initiation of the collapse of Each turn. This sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions of the beginning of the collapse have been reached and the collapse Has become inevitable. “

Thus the final report on the collapse of the twin towers does not contain any analysis of the reasons why the lower sections failed to stop or even slow down the descent of the upper stages which NIST recognizes as having ” free”. It does not explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapse.When a group of petitioners filed a formal request for correction asking NIST to perform such an analysis, the NIST responded that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “computer models Were not able to converge towards a solution. ”

The collapse mechanisms discussed above are only a fraction of the available data indicating that aircraft impacts and subsequent fires did not cause collapse of the twin towers.

The videos show that the top of each turn disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that, not a single video shows the upper levels that are supposedly descended with crashing to the ground.

The videos and photos also show many fragments of high-speed debris being ejected from point sources (see Figure 5). NIST refers to these flashes as “puffs of smoke,” but fails to analyze them correctly.The NIST also does not provide any explanation for spraying most of the tower concrete, almost totally dismembering its steel frames, or ejecting these materials up to 150 meters in all directions.

 The NIST avoids mentioning the well-documented presence of molten metal across the debris field and states that the orange molten metal glimpsing from the WTC 2 during the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the combined device With organic materials.Nevertheless, experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance which suggests that the orange molten metal was rather an aluminothermic reaction being used to weaken the structure. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermite has been discovered in several independent samples from the WTC dust.

Il vaut la peine de répéter que les incendies n’ont jamais provoqué l’effondrement total d’un gratte-ciel d’acier avant ou depuis le 11 septembre. Nous avons assisté à un événement sans précédent trois fois le 11 septembre 2001? Les rapports du NIST, qui tentent de soutenir cette conclusion peu probable, ne parviennent pas à convaincre un nombre croissant d’architectes, d’ingénieurs et de scientifiques. Au lieu de cela, la preuve conduit clairement à la conclusion que les trois bâtiments ont été détruits par une démolition contrôlée .

Compte tenu des implications profondes, il est moralement impératif que cette hypothèse fasse l’objet d’une enquête véritablement scientifique et impartiale par les autorités responsables.