By: Paul Harvey

Paul Harvey — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:53:58 +0000

I agree with Mr. Michaels. The article says there are “strong contrary arguments.” Yet looking closely at that NIST report, again and again we find assertions, not arguments. The computer models they used rely on many assumptions chosen to make the collapse possible, but that again and again violate what was observed and the evidence that was left over.

The mystery is not that Building 7 collapsed due to fire: I don’t think anyone doubts that, in some universe, this is possible. The mystery is that three skyscrapers on the same day collapsed virtually into their own footprints due to fire. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Building 7 is especially important because unlike WTC 1 and 2, the excuse that jet fuel and the impact of a plane somehow made those happen is unavailable. Nobody argues for a minute–not even NIST–that the damage to WTC was or could have been symmetrical. Yet the building collapses in almost pure symmetry. This is why demolition experts have been among those most vocal in challenging NIST’s conclusions: they know that it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get a skyscraper to collapse into its own footprint without extensive planning and preparation. Had it happened once on 9/11, I’d be happy to call it that rare, one in a million chance. But three times in one day? As Aretha said, who’s zooming who?

By: Phillip Michaels

Phillip Michaels — Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:52:06 +0000

The excuses offered by NIST play a prominent part at the end of this article, but as the late radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, “there is more to the story.” The article reports that NIST said, “No blast sounds were heard…or reported by witnesses,” but there were over 150 people (120+ of them firemen) who did report explosions. NIST fallback position with this obvious misstatement of the facts was that there was no noise loud enough to have been an explosion taking down the building, but NIST assumes the sound level required for controlled demolition was the sound generated by the explosion of thermite, not the much quieter and more powerful nano-thermite (which independent scientists found evidence of in the dust from the site). Further, there is the evidence of what NIST didn’t do. They didn’t check for any chemical evidence of explosive materials. After deciding that there were no explosions (…loud enough…), they didn’t test for explosive residue, period. There are other weaknesses buried in the depth of NIST’s reports, most large enough to drive a truck (loaded with explosives) through; however, looking at the minutia–as the end of this column does–overlooks the most powerful pieces of evidence of controlled demolition for Building Seven: (1) it came down in a symmetrical collapse and (2) the collapsing rooftop fell at free fall acceleration for at least eight stories. Symmetry means that all 81 columns in the building would have to fail at the same time and free fall acceleration means that when they fell there was nothing in the way. NIST offered no explanation for either of these facts, even though these inconvenient truths only have one well-established explanation, they are the identifying characteristics of controlled demolition. Glad the Daily Commercial News tackled this issue, but a “Paul Harvey” view of the official explanation would have made for a much better article.

Comments on: 9/11 destruction “controlled demolition” — fact or fiction?

By: Paul Harvey

By: Phillip Michaels