PENCILS DOWN!

The Operation Tip the Planet
Ad Contest Entries Are in!

Editor’s note: This is Part 9 (see Part 8) of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. For more information on the topics discussed in this section, see our FAQ on Larry Silverstein and our article that analyzes Barry Jennings’ testimony. (Quotes from Popular Mechanics’ book are shown in red and with page numbers.)

Part 9:
Larry Silverstein and Barry Jennings

Larry Silverstein’s “Pull It” Quote

Analysis of Larry Silverstein’s statements about WTC7 reveals that they do not match the sequence of events that occurred on 9/11

PM’s next section deals with another controversial issue in the debate regarding WTC7 – the infamous quote from WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein regarding the building’s destruction. For reference, here is Silverstein’s full quote from his interview with PBS:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”¹

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Proudly Announces:

THIS IS THE YEAR WE MAKE IT HAPPEN!

In spite of the fact that the 9/11 truth message has been censored by many in the media, ignored by Congress and the President, and shunned by most academic institutions, polls still show that more than 30% of US citizens doubt the official story about 9/11. Let’s reach out to the rest!

The terrifying specter of drone strikes on US civilians, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act… these are just a few disturbing consequences that continue to follow widespread acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative.

No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even remotely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true.

NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.

1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall.

NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred. It began when the point NIST was using ^[1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner. Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration.

Editor’s Note:
This article chronicles the ongoing efforts by Canadian 9/11 Truth activists to persuade their members of Parliament to call for a new 9/11 investigation. If you’d like to take part in this crucial campaign, send an email to Mike Bondi and tell him you want to help!

Vancouver East MP Libby Davies became the first federal representative to call for a new 9/11 inquiry in the Canadian Parliament

Canadian AE911Truth supporters are making the best of a unique opportunity that their government provides for obtaining a real 9/11 investigation. The petition process grants all Canadians the right to petition Parliament – but as we discovered, this can be an uphill battle.

The general principle is that any Canadian may petition Parliament directly in a matter that cannot be resolved any other way. The first step is to create the petition and have it certified to be “in order” by the Clerk of Petitions. Once this is done, at least 25 signatures must be gathered.

Parliamentary rules do not allow unelected citizens to be on the floor of Parliament. A Member of Parliament (MP) needs to agree to physically deliver a particular petition to the clerk’s desk inside Parliament.