4-Year University Study Discredits Official 9/11 Narrative
“Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams,” has been an aphorism used by those who believe the events on 9/11 were a false flag operation. It is also used pejoratively by those who believe that several steel-framed buildings fell in on themselves in downtown Manhattan that day, due primarily to intense heat from fires, defying all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.
It can be difficult to take a firm stance on either side of the argument when talking about an event that was so tragic and insidious. But no matter where one stands in their perspective of Sept. 11, 2001, it helps to keep an open mind and always question the narrative we are fed that is so often controlled by underlying agendas.
9/11 False Flag
Of the horrific attacks that took place that day, there are seemingly endless postulations and conspiracies as to what really went on. Millions of dollars of United and American Airlines “put-option” stocks were traded in the week leading up to the attack; there were blatant business ties between the Bush family and Osama bin Laden; and only one flight was allowed in the air after the attacks, flying 140 Saudi nationals home to safety. These are just a few of the conspicuous events tied to that day.
But the use of those events as justification to go to war, ostensibly makes 9/11 a false flag event used as an imperialist grab of oil reserves, miring us in an endless conflict with no light at the end of the tunnel. Terrorism persists, Operation Iraqi Freedom created a bigger monster in ISIS, and the situation in Afghanistan is still a quagmire.
But the truth behind the events of that day still remain shrouded by government cover-ups and harsh ridicule of those who dare to question that narrative. All the elements of the events that have transpired since, are the classic building blocks of a false flag operation. And a majority of Americans believe the government is concealing information about 9/11, while 15 percent believe the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
Leroy Hulsey’s WTC 7 Evaluation
The most confounding discrepancy in the events that took place on 9/11 is the collapse of World Trade Center tower number seven, or WTC 7. If there is any evidence of a more sinister, underlying plot, WTC 7 is the smoking gun. While the official story behind the collapse of the main towers is similarly suspicious, the fact that they were hit by planes lends slightly more credence to the official narrative. However, WTC 7 was never struck by a plane, instead it caught fire after the collapse of towers one and two.
Prior to, and since that day, fire has never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed, high-rise building. This is the argument coming from many structural engineers and architects, most notably Leroy Hulsey. Hulsey, who is the chair of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, has been working in conjunction with a non-profit group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
An expert in engineering and mathematical modeling, Hulsey has led a team of Ph.D. students in a four-year study, virtually recreating the collapse of WTC 7. Last week, Hulsey and his team released their report, critiquing the official 2002 investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and detailing their research based on the alleged reasons given for WTC 7’s collapse. Their conclusion: fires did not cause the collapse of WTC 7.
In the past, Hulsey has testified in front of the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry with the basic assertion that fires could not have caused the collapse of the building. Hulsey details the numerous flaws in the evaluation made by NIST with his process of research and scrutiny between he and his doctoral students. When asked, hypothetically, if he would fail one of his students if they submitted an evaluation of the collapse of Tower 7 like the one NIST used to achieve its findings, he resoundingly replied yes.
NIST’s Faulty Evaluation
So, what was the official evaluation given by NIST that was supposed to definitively end any speculation as to why WTC 7 collapsed? According to their report, a thermal expansion of floor beams pushed an adjoining girder off its seat, which led to a subsequent collapse of eight floors. An additional failure of other girders from the same thermal expansion caused a nine-story column to collapse, followed by the collapse of the rest of the interior and then the exterior.
One of the flaws and obvious biases of NIST’s report is that it was started with a predetermined conclusion. Given the nature of the building’s collapse, it would obviously make sense to at least entertain the idea of a controlled demolition, considering that all of the tell-tale signs were there. A report published in Europhysics News, by a group of engineers and physicists, details the flaws in NIST’s report and the apparent bias in its process.
Not to mention that despite the urging that evidence be preserved in the form of debris from the tower’s collapse, the city had it all removed and destroyed in the weeks immediately after the tower collapsed.
Steven Jones, one of the authors of the report who has gained notoriety in his research, even pointed out a flaw in NIST’s data that led them to change their original evaluation. Jones says this flaw was more along the lines of ignored evidence. NIST’s report ignored the fact that the building, upon collapse, went into free fall.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on NIST’s evaluation said that free fall wasn’t possible because of the structural resistance of the floors below. After Jones contended this issue, based on video of the collapse, NIST conceded that it did in fact go into free fall for 2.25 seconds – a clear characteristic of a controlled demolition.
Dr. Sunder is also quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” FEMA’s conclusion is equally as inconclusive…
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”
But aside from the debate over the physics of what happened in the collapse of the towers, there is another piece of evidence of a controlled demolition that is hard to deny, namely the presence of thermite. Thermite is a powdered amalgam of iron oxide and other alloys that can be described as the metal equivalent to kindling. This powder works as an ignitor generating extremely high temperatures. Nano-thermite is a more highly advanced version developed by the military for its customizable reaction rates and incredibly small particulate size. It releases energy much quicker than regular thermite and can be ignited by unconventional means such as laser pulses.
The presence of nano-thermite in dust from the wreckage of the towers was brought to the attention of NIST by Jones. The investigators questioned the provenance of his samples and when he invited them to look for samples of their own, they unsurprisingly declined. A stream of molten metal was also recorded pouring out of the towers before they collapsed, an indication of nano-thermite at work.
Although an increasing amount of evidence continues to be uncovered, the push back from government agencies continues with their refusal to investigate this evidence. Could WTC 7 actually have collapsed from fires and a weakening of steel girders, being the first to fall, in this nature, in the history of steel-enforced structures?
And what about the BBC’s reporting that the tower collapsed, before it actually had? Why would they predict a completely unprecedented event to occur before it actually happened without having been given that information? Will the government or any major government agencies respond to Hulsey’s latest report? Or have too many years elapsed since that day, that the public no longer has the patience needed to continue challenging the implausible narrative we’ve been fed?
Controversial Characteristics of Fractional Reserve Banking
Chances are, if everyone at your bank decided to withdraw the entirety of each of their bank accounts, the bank would not have enough money at its disposal to meet the demand. This is because banks commonly operate under a fractional reserve banking system. In other words, the bank uses your money however it wants, banking (ahem) on the fact that its account holders won’t protest. Unfair? It sure sounds like it. Stealing? The banks prefer to call it “borrowing.”
What Is Fractional Reserve Banking?
Many people believe that when they deposit money into a bank, the bank keeps all of their money on hand, in a vault, in cash. But this isn’t the way most banks work. According to Investopedia.com, fractional reserve banking refers to a system where banks only back a fraction of bank deposits with actual cash on-hand, available for immediate withdrawal.
This means only a fraction of the money you deposit into your account is required to be available for withdrawal at any given time. For most banks, that fraction is a mere 10 percent of your deposit. So, instead of putting $100 into the vault when you deposit a $100 check, only $10 goes in. That $10 is known as “reserves.”
Surprisingly, many banks are not required to even keep 10 percent on hand — and some aren’t required to keep any reserves at all. Any bank with less than $15.2 million in assets is exempt from keeping any reserves, and those with assets between $15.2 million and $110.2 million are only required to keep 3 percent.
There is an incentive, though, for your bank to keep more of your money in the vault: The Federal Reserve pays out interest on all reserves and excess reserves. The interest is called IOR (“Interest On Reserves”) or IOER (“Interest On Excess Reserves”), and since 2009, it pays out 0.25% at an annual rate.