December 19, 2018
Fire Did Not Cause WTC-7 To Collapse, New Study Finds
By Arjun Walia
Published 11 hours ago on September 9, 2019
- The Facts:
A draft report of a new study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks has been published. The study has been years in the making and the findings show so far without doubt, that fire did not bring down WTC 7.
- Reflect On:
If fire did not bring down WTC 7, what did? If it was a controlled demolition, what are the implications of that? Who was involved? If the public can see this so easily, why can't government?
A brand-new study has come out in 2019 out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks has concluded “definitively” that fire could not have caused the fall of World Trade Center building 7. Regardless of official government claims that the building came down due to fire, most people knew this wasn’t the case, and 18 years later we now have the definitive proof.
Of course, the mainstream media has not touched this story since it came out days ago. Before we get to the study, let’s explore just a couple things about why this is incredibly important.
I’ve used a number of quotes in articles that bring up the topic of false flag terrorism to shed light on what’s really been happening over the past couple decades. One of my favorites comes from Edward Bernays, who was known as the father of public relations and worked very closely with the government. According to him, “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” (source)
This ‘dark’ side of government is nothing new, and has been expressed by many who are in positions of power and would be privy to this information, like President Theodore Roosevelt, who told the world that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” (source)
When it comes to false flag terrorism, there are also many examples of people who tried to shed light on this, including Pierre-Henri Bunel. He’s a former high-ranking French artillery and intelligence officer who became more known to the public when he leaked sensitive NATO documents during the Kosovo war, which he served jail time for.
In a piece written by him for Global Research, he quotes a speech given by former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in the House of Commons stating that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an April-June 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.
Another one from Cook:
The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money. (source)
It’s not just insiders blowing the whistle, there is hard evidence for this type of thing, which is why a couple of years ago, current presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.608). It was a bill to stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda.
So, let’s ask ourselves some questions, like why did George Herbert Walker Bush have a meeting with Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden, and members of his family the day before and the morning of the 9/11 attacks? It was apparently a routine “business” meeting.
The New 9/11 Study:
As most of you reading this will know, on September 11, 2001 at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction. Calls for the evidence to be preserved went unheard, and New York City officials had the building’s debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.
The idea that there were pre-planted explosives inside of the building is a thought that’s been pondered by many families of victims, scientists, physicists, engineers, and many more. Franklin Square Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia recently discussed his fire district’s recent passage of a historic resolution supporting a new investigation into events of 9/11.
The latest news comes from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where professor and Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, just released a new study proving “definitively,” according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth founder Richard Gage, that fire did not cause the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.
On September 3rd, Architects & Engineers released this statement:
Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of 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.
The significance of ‘near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building’ is great because this leads one to posit that explosives must have been used to bring it down. Explosives would mean someone had access to the tower’s main structures to plant all of the explosives and yet the government is still avoiding this fact.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video,” said Professor Hulsey. “We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on 9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17.”
The release of this draft report begins a two-month period where the public is invited to submit comments. Unlike NISTS’s nontransparent model of explaining how WTC7 came down, the research team at UAF plans to make public by the end of September all of the data used and generated during the study. NIST’s official explanation for why they did not release the model themselves? It “might jeopardize public safety.”
You would think that with all of the evidence that’s been presented over the years, including testimonies from thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, firefighters, and families of victims as well as whistle-blowers, that a new investigation would have been opened. Even the current president of the United States, Donald Trump, has implied that 9/11 was a controlled demolition.
The fact that mainstream media and many influential figures within the government have implied that all of the people who question what happened on that day are ‘conspiracy theorists’ is quite concerning. The evidence has gone completely ignored, and all that’s ever used as a reply to it is ridicule.
The answer as to why there’s been no response to this new investigation is simple–it’s because the implications are too huge.
W. O. Belfield, Jr.
July 10, 2018