This week on 9/11 Free Fall, host Andy Steele is joined by structural engineer Kamal Obeid and architect Kent Rattan, both board members of AE911Truth. Together, they take apart a four-minute video, broadcast by NBCLX around the 20th anniversary of 9/11, which attempts to push onto a young audience NIST’s story of how the World Trade Center towers were destroyed.

This episode of 9/11 Free Fall is one hour long. We invite you to listen or to read the interview.

Andy Steele:

Welcome to 9/11 Free Fall. I'm the host Andy Steele. Today, we're joined by Kamal Obeid and Kent Rattan. Kamal is a board member for AE911Truth. He holds a master's degree in civil engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. He has been a practicing civil and structural engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area since 1980 and a licensed structural engineer since 1985.

During his career, Kamal has served as engineer of record on many building design and retrofit projects. He specializes in structural steel building analysis as well as investigating structural failures of steel-frame buildings. At one point, he served as a volunteer for the Office of Emergency Services, that's FEMA, and he was investigating earthquake failures in that service. He is also a longtime member SE of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California and has served on several of its code and business forum committees.

And as I said, he's joined by Kent Rattan, who's also a board member for AE911Truth. Kent has a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Trinity University, San Antonio, and a Master's in Architecture from the University of Texas, Austin. He has worked in firms in Austin, Houston, and Dallas before working for 20 years as a corporate architect and project manager at the Marriott International Headquarters and Sodexho Marriott Headquarters.

He has acted as a project architect, project manager, and project director on many projects in high-rise buildings in Dallas, New York City, D.C., Virginia, and elsewhere. And he spent many years managing projects in Midtown Manhattan while living in the D.C./Maryland suburbs.

So, these gentlemen have a lot of experience. They certainly know what they're talking about, better than a lot of people we see on the television talking about the events of September 11th, what happened in New York City with the World Trade Center, hence the whole point of this show today, I'll get into that more in just a few moments, but guys, welcome to 9/11 Free Fall.

Kamal Obeid:

Thank you, Andy.

Kent Rattan:

Hi, Andy

Kamal Obeid:

It's good to be with you both.

Andy Steele:

So here we go. Now around the 20th anniversary, we obviously had our own events going on. We had a movie premiering and we are not omni present here, folks. So, we don't know everything that's going on out there in the world. We don't know every opinion that's being expressed on the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

And it just came to our attention very recently, there are a couple of pieces put out. We'll be talking at least about one of them today and if we have time, the other one. But the first one we'll be talking about is this piece that was put out by a network called NBC LX. And as far as I can discern, this is a net network, if that's the proper term. Probably not, but that's what we'll call it.

It appears to be a network that's only on the internet. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like NIST was really trying to reinforce that official story around the 20th anniversary and probably to get ahead of other things that were expected to happen, but more on that later.

So what we're going to do, because this has been passed around social media, apparently for the last several months, I'm going to play this. It's short enough that we can pick it apart, debunk it. It's not hard. Actually the challenge is, is trying to squeeze it all into a half an hour because whenever they do this, there's so much to say about why they are wrong that we could be talking for two hours here, but this one is short enough that I think we can do it.

So I'm going to play the full segment for the audience now and for our guests. And then we're going to rewind and break it up piece by piece. So here you go. This is NBC LX. And part of this involves an interview with Ms. Therese McAllister.

 

NBC LX recording:

My name is Aleysha Garcia, and I'm 20 years old. Was it controlled demolition?

I'm Terry McAllister. I work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST conducted a very extensive study.

TV clip 1:

Today is April the 18th, 2002. My name is Donald Kramer and I will be taking walkthroughs.

McAllister:

We had 200 technical experts. Just to give you an idea of how carefully we considered all the information that was available, we reviewed tens of thousands of documents. We interviewed more than a thousand people. We reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage that totaled 150 hours of video and 7,000 photographs from over 185 photographers. And we recovered 236 pieces to steel from the debris following the collapse from the towers.

So the fires did not melt the steel. Steel has to get extremely hot before it melts. It does get softened though.

TV clip 2:

Why did the Twin Towers crumble the way they did? How did they remain standing for so long? One of the innovations was making the external walls the primary support for the towers. These outer columns, tied closer together than was normal at the time, could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Though the plane would destroy some of the columns, the building would still remain standing.

McAllister:

If you look at the construction of the World Trade Center towers, you need look at the photos of them. They had very closely spaced exterior columns, and when the aircraft hit the buildings, it largely created a massive amount of debris and fuel being spread across the floors that were impacted and what this did, it not a only spread fuel to start fires much more broadly than you would typically in a building fire. But it also stripped off what we call the fire protection materials on the steel columns. And when that got stripped away, that increased the ability of the steel to be exposed to heat. So it softened. And what that means is, as it became heated, it couldn't carry as much load as it could when it was cooler.

TV clip 3:

The World Trade Center towers were attacked with approximately 185 tons of aircraft carrying 75 tons of jet fuel. Though the structure seemed to withstand the impact, the explosions and the subsequent heat from the burning jet fuel were beyond its limits. The nearly 2000 degree temperature would eventually take its toll.

McAllister:

All the failure occurred at the aircraft damage level and above. And once that tipped a little bit and started to come down, then the rest of the building failed. And some people questioned, oh, I saw puffs of smoke or something as the building was collapsing. Well, think about it, as each floor is starting to collapse down all the dry wall and all the things that are in each floor level is getting pushed out sideways.

If you understand what's required to do controlled demolition, what you'll see is you have to go around each column, the vertical members that are holding the building up and very carefully prepare them. You have to pull everything away. You've got to sometimes make cuts into the members and you've got to put materials and explosives next to them.

You've got to do all this on a number of the columns with nobody noticing, with nobody being aware. And these buildings were occupied and under surveillance and security 24/7. So one, the chance of that happening was just unrealistic. And two, there's absolutely no evidence that anything like that took place.

 

Andy Steele:

All right, there you go, folks. So we got the noises of the street there at the end. Now, I don't want to be repetitive with this, but I did break this up into smaller clips because when you're sitting there addressing something, it's hard to remember every single thing that gets brought up.

So I will be playing the first part of that again in a minute or so. I do want to note though, that the whole presentation of this appears to be aimed at young people. They start off with a young person on the street asking if the towers were brought down in controlled demolitions, and they're using this kind of style with this funky MTV, the real world font in it. And they use it throughout the whole thing with arrows pointing to things, the letters are kind of squiggly. So again, young people appear to be the target audience of this segment.

And I don't know about other folks out there, but I always found this approach to young people in marketing stuff to be a bit patronizing. It's like this news broadcast that they would play in the dining hall of my college when I was a young person a long time ago, and half the broadcast showed teenagers doing these wacky things like diving into pools full of jello and other nonsense as if nobody would watch the news, unless there was silly stuff on it there, like nobody's really interested in the world.

Trust me folks, the news isn't losing young people and other people in other demographics because it's not funky enough, it's because everybody is waking up to the fact that it's just pure propaganda. Nobody believes it anymore. There's different twists and bends and ideologies of the news, but it's all propaganda for one side or the other, or both sides of a very bad agenda here.

But I just don't think this approach is going to have much of an effect, but let's talk or let's just go ahead and hear what Terry McAllister has to say in that first clip again. So let me just go ahead and play that.

 

Clip 1:

My name is Aleysha Garcia and I'm 20 years old. Was it controlled demolition?

I'm Terry McAllister. I work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST conducted a very extensive study.

TV clip 1:

Today is April the 18th, 2002. My name is Donald Kramer and I will be taking walkthroughs.

McAllister:

We had 200 technical experts. Just to give you an idea of how carefully we considered all the information that was available ...

 

Andy Steele:

All right. So let's look at what Ms. McAllister had to say there. She begins her part by saying NIST conducted a very extensive study and they show all these twisted beams and columns in the World Trade Center, all gathered and collected, and they even showed John Gross there in his suit and tie. I think his hands are on his hips in this segment. I guess he's being briefed there, very Eisenhower like Mr. Gross.

But what they should be showing is a photograph of John Gross in his blue jeans, standing beside the chemically damaged steel that we, I believe, recited in our request for correction to NIST, the steel that has Swiss cheese holes in it. Obviously notable enough for Mr. Gross and his team to take the photo of it.

If it's not notable, why are you posing next to it? And of course, to do this kind of damage, it would take, I believe up to 4000 degree temperatures that jet fuel can't account for, unless you believe that scientifically establish melting points and evaporation points of building materials are now a conspiracy theory.

And, of course, as most of this audience knows when asked about this publicly, John Gross denied evidence of extreme temperatures at the World Trade Center despite literally posing in this photograph right next to the evidence of it. And he does this most likely because whenever anyone connected to these NIST reports are cornered by their own false data, what they do is they just simply lie.

It's like when Shyam Sunder was being interviewed by Allan Reese, and he claimed that the molten metal caught on video falling from the South Tower was silver, but anybody who actually takes the time to use the YouTube machine and watches this video can plainly see that it is glowing orange, all right? But it doesn't matter, as long as it can get through any difficult moment that they're in, they will say whatever it takes. So those are my thoughts. Gentlemen, we'll start with Kamal.

Kamal Obeid:

Well, I mean, I think this video and I actually watched it, and just when you kind of watch it, you also see what with the juxtaposing next to Therese McAllister speaking. As far as the structural elements of the building collapsing, they only looked at, well, they only showed Building 7 while she's talking about planes hitting the building and collapsing the building.

I think it relies on just putting something out for people that haven't, the general public that haven't looked at those buildings, and it's easy to kind of, because they have a model that's collapsing, so it kind of looks nice, but it doesn't ... I mean, for anybody who's technically oriented, anybody who's actually looked at those buildings, it's sad to see that this thing is really put together as sound bites, sound bites to basically convey a message that NIST has done all these studies, they spent all this money, taxpayers money, and they came up with a conclusion that supports the government's story, essentially.

And that's what this is all about. It's not really science that we're talking about here. It's just more fluff. So, that's my take on it.

Kent Rattan:

Yeah, there was a lot of fluff in that first segment. I mean, 10,000 documents or 1,000 documents. It depends on which time you listen to it. And importantly, I don't think any of those documents to my knowledge, included the, for instance, the 118 firemen that are on record as hearing explosions. And that plus mixing and Building 7 with the Twin Towers, we know that they were brought down completely differently.

The Twin Towers were indeed hit by airplanes. The jet fuel did indeed burn off almost immediately. You can tell it was an oxygen-starved fire with black smoke immediately. There's absolutely no causation from the jet fuel there. And there was no explanation whatsoever of the molten steel, low grade, for months and months that it went on. So there was just not a whole lot of science in that first segment at all, just propaganda.

Andy Steele:

That's right. There's not a whole lot of science very much in this entire segment, but you're talking about all these numbers they're citing. Let's actually get to that because it goes into the next clip.

 

Clip 2:

McAllister:

We reviewed tens of thousands of documents. We interviewed more than 1,000 people. We reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage that totaled 150 hours of video and 7,000 photographs from over 185 photographers. And we recovered 236 pieces of steel from the debris following the collapse from the towers.

 

Andy Steele:

All right, hear all those numbers folks? They are throwing them at you. Most people have not looked at all of those things and they say, wow, this lady must really know her stuff. I mean, they even put, they use the funky real world MTV font to say the numbers, to write the numbers on the screen as she's saying all of this, it sounds so impressive.

However, in the end, all these numbers that they cite don't make a lick a difference when the final conclusion is provably false and you can cite inaccuracies in their data, such as the structural features that they omitted in their Building 7 report. And they did this in order to make their collapse scenario more plausible.

This has been covered on this show and extensively by AE911Truth. So the question isn't how many pieces of evidence they were privy to, but what did they actually cherry pick from this? And what did they completely ignore? Of course, they looked at a bunch of stuff because when you have a pre-determined conclusion that you want to come to, you've got to go look through a lot of pieces of evidence and say, oh no, we can't show that. Oh, no, we can't use that.

Oh, that might fit into our narrative. So I'm not impressed by all these numbers that they're throwing out here, because in the end, if you're wrong, you are wrong. It doesn't matter how much work you did, how much taxpayer money you wasted. If you are wrong, you are wrong.

All right. And of course they overlooked other evidence. I'd be more impressed if they say that they looked at the evidence of high temperatures or the missing shear studs and stiffener plates. Well, that's missing from their report. Those things weren't missing in World Trade Center 7.

So again, they started with a predetermined conclusion and then likely they went through all that evidence to carefully say only that which wouldn't throw out that predetermined conclusion or put it in jeopardy. And then they threw out the rest because of course this whole thing was a whitewash. So this is just them trying to bedazzle you and create some kind of sense of authority because hey, we had access to all of this stuff, yet we were still wrong in the end. Of course, they don't say that part. That's what we say. Gentlemen, again, we'll begin with Kamal.

Kamal Obeid:

So I think for our audience, it's interesting, it's a good thing to point out that NIST has done, essentially they studied the two buildings. They basically came up with a study for each one of the towers and Building 7. Now the towers, they had quite a limited study, which basically came up with the reason or how the buildings could collapse. And they just looked at the initiation of collapse.

On Building 7 , they went a little further where they looked at the initiation of collapse and then that the building can experience global collapse and both studies were flawed. But I think what we need to really point out here is that what's missing from the narrative is that this huge amount of evidence, which is the entire structural steel and the entire pieces of the debris of the structure went missing immediately after, almost.

So there were only 236 pieces of steel out of a massive, I would say, millions of pieces of steel that could tell a different story that should have been saved and used for the investigation. None of that was available to any structural engineer reviewing this thing properly.

So when we look at the numbers and these very impressive 10,000 documents, 7,000 photographs, 236 pieces of steel, that's nothing. I mean, that's just for people that want to pay attention to this thing, it's very important to note that 236 pieces of steel is not evidence. And what pieces of steel are those? Are they from the towers? Are they from Building 7?What pieces of steel are they? Are they nice pieces of steel that just look nice and they pick those up?

What about, I mean, looking at reassembling the entire building and essentially looking at where the collapse started, if they want to make a case, where the collapse started and how these pieces, the connections collapsed, reviewing the entire structure piece by piece for this thing to really be science. So, that's a real problem. That's one of the major issues that I have with the NIST study to begin with, or the government analysis of the buildings.

Kent Rattan:

I agree with everything that you said, Kamal. I would also point out that not only was the steel taken off site and then recycled as quickly as possible to China, but there was no study of the steel on the site itself that was required by the NFPA protocols.

I mean, every piece of evidence was spirited away, practically, except for what was cherry picked. And then of course, when John Gross was photographed with a piece of sulfurated steel, he just sort of laughs it off and kind of goes on next, next, it's embarrassing really.

I mean, the amount of scientific rigor that is not demonstrated in either the initiation of the Twin Towers collapse, or the more fully done building seven omitting stiffeners that were required and were built into the building that would prevent their theory from even getting past step one.

So it's just mind boggling that this can even begin to stand up because as you know, architects and engineers, and many other people have looked at this and have said that this is just not the way it's done, it's just not the way it's done.

Andy Steele:

All right, let's go ahead and play clip three here.

 

Clip 3:

So the fires did not melt the steel. Steel has to get extremely hot before it melts it. It does get softened though.

 

Andy Steele:

All right. So the only true thing that she said was the steel needs to get extremely hot before it melts. And that's because this is a hard one for them to get around. So they just lie and say, there's no evidence of extreme temperatures. And again, despite photographic and video evidence and eyewitness accounts of molten steel that they pretend doesn't exist, despite the high temperatures that burn for weeks in the pile, all of this evidence that then included in all those bloated numbers they cite at the beginning of this piece here. And she adds their standard line that the steel didn't need to melt, just soften.

Of course, this doesn't account for the impossible free fall drop of the buildings as they came down. And it also ignores the point I just made, which is the steel did melt. It did melt. What are you going to do about that? In fact, we have partially evaporated steel documented in appendix three of the initial FEMA report, which of course NIST came in and threw away so that they could give us the official cover up. Kamal?

Kamal Obeid:

So she's talking about steel not melting and basically getting soft, and she's talking about when the planes hit, and this is where she's showing the Building 7 instead of the towers and that the fireproofing was basically lost on portions of the building, and that's why the steel got heated so much that it got softened and started the collapse of the building. So molten steel is definitely something that needs to be looked at because there was substantial evidence of that.

But I think the more interesting thing for a structural engineer is, the simplistic thought is that, once the building starts to collapse, or once some beams or trusses start falling, then the entire building falls and it falls straight into its footprint in such an incredibly beautiful manner that resembles controlled demolition, but it's not controlled demolition because they say it's not.

And when you look at, we've done also sorts of studies and we've analyzed those buildings, we've looked at all the evidence as well. And all of us, I mean, all of the people who have signed a petition to ask for another investigation conclude that it's not possible for those buildings to collapse the way they did, with some steel kind of softening and the building collapsing in on itself.

It's just not a possibility at all that, that could ever happen without a very well planned, very well put together collapse mechanism that is not discussed at all here. So as far as the towers go, since we're talking about the towers, the initiation of the collapse happened. So, some trusses collapsed. Some of the portions of the building began crumbling, but then the building just fell as if there's nothing underneath, as if there is no structure that can offer any resistance underneath the building whatsoever.

And the building just fell at the acceleration of gravity. That's something to be amazed at. As far as Building 7 goes, the study went a little further where they wanted to show how the building could collapse and every element, every portion of their study that talks about beams failing and initiating columns failing, columns buckling, all of these are unlikely to happen.

First of all, Building 7 was not hit by a plane and fires burned out pretty rapidly. And the building then started collapsing after that, but it also fell at free fall into its footprint. But in this model then, the one that Therese McAllister is juxtaposing right next to her talk, it looks like the building is actually crumpling like a soda can.

So that's their conclusion of how the buildings collapsed, which is, if you actually do take out all the elements that they say were taken out, as far as Building 7 goes, and we're talking about Building 7 because that's what they show on the picture there, the building starts to crumble.

I mean, which is, if you actually do it in a model, that's what it's going to look like. But then how do you explain how the building fell into its footprint? No explanation whatsoever. That's enough. We've done that study. We're done. The building can collapse. It doesn't have to look like the actual footage, but we made it collapse. So we satisfied the story. The story is done, closed. The topic is closed, reviewed 10,000 documents, 7,000 photographs, done. We've done an exhaustive study. We don't need to do anymore.

Kent Rattan:

It's sort of like the immaculate conception. You have to take these things on faith, not science. And unfortunately for NIST, science is the world that we live in. Kamal, that's the way you design structures. That's the way I have looked at structures and hired people to do that for me, my entire professional career.

You don't design a building and just hope it stands up. There is a reason that buildings don't collapse like this. It's just a ridiculous whitewash. And for the Twin Towers to collapse in the direction of their highest resistance, almost at free fall is absurd. It's absolutely absurd. Even the hacky sack players would grant you that much. They understand at least that much physics.

So, it's playing down to them, and it's really playing down to the lowest common denominator of the American public in terms of our understanding of the way this physical universe actually works.

Andy Steele:

So let's just go ahead now to clip four, where is that? Here we go.

 

Clip 4:

Why did the Twin Towers crumble the way they did? How did they remain standing for so long? One of the innovations was making the external walls the primary support for the towers. These outer columns tied closer together than was normal at the time could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Though the plane would destroy some of the columns, the building would still remain standing.

McAllister:

If you look at the construction of the World Trade Center towers, you need to look at the photos of them, they had very closely spaced exterior columns. And when the aircraft hit the buildings, it largely created a massive amount of debris and fuel being spread across the floors that were impacted. And what this did, it not only spread fuel to start fires much more broadly than you would typically in a building fire, but it also stripped off what we call the fire protection materials on the steel columns.

And when that got stripped away, that increased the ability of the steel to be exposed to heat. So it softened, and what that means is, as it became heated, it couldn't carry as much load as it could when it was cooler.

 

Andy Steele:

All right, now I think it's in this segment that they show, they're showing diagrams of the internal workings of the buildings. They're talking about the Twin Towers, but they're showing you a diagram of World Trade Center 7, probably an honest take on the producer of this film's part, things like that happen.

I know if that we did that people would be going nuts. They'd be crucifying us. You'd have people writing all capital letters, the people who don't like us, debunked, AE911Truth debunked, you have the wrong picture there. So it's kind of a double standard. They jump on anything they can. If I clear my throat at the wrong moment, they read something into it.

But what they're trying to do here is, ignore the fact that the twin towers had a core structure. And this would've also provided resistance. Of course, it would've slowed the top block down as it fell.

Now, don't forget, NIST's claim is this top block act as the pile driver crushing the whole building down to the ground, but Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti wrote a paper on this, the missing jolt that doesn't decelerate. NIST even admits itself that the towers fell essentially at free fall. So there's not really a dispute here when it comes to us and NIST on that point, and they bank a lot on this idea of jet fuel and raging fires, but keep in mind, a lot of that jet fuel was spent in the fireballs that are erupted from the sides of the building when the planes hit. Kamal, any comments?

Kamal Obeid:

Well, I think it's laughable actually, the theories that they're putting forth. As far as the towers go, the core definitely provides a huge amount of support for the structure and the exterior skin of the building as it is designed, is designed to be redundant and carry the building after it gets punctured as the plane punctures it.

So in order for the building to collapse with the top being a pile driver... Let's assume the building is collapsing from the top as they're claiming for it to happen, then how does the rest of the building collapse, how does it drive the entire building down, if that's the problem there?

And, there's mentioned there that all the columns have to have carefully planted explosives and all that good stuff, in order for this thing to happen, which is they say, with all this scrutiny and all the security couldn't have happened, but with the towers, it's possible for the core to be actually planted with heavily planted explosives. And if you take a good portion of the core out, you could actually get the building collapsing that way. So it's not beyond logic that this could actually happen if it was planned that way.

Andy Steele:

Right. Which indeed it was. Kent.

Kent Rattan:

Well, what we conceptualize that type of building as nowadays is a bundled tube. I mean, it has an exoskeleton and an endoskeleton, and the core disappeared as well. How did that happen? How did that happen? 110 stories of core, huge 36-inch columns that just disappears at free fall. It just does not hold up at all, even to the most cursory examination.

So what Ms. McAllister and the other people at NIST have done is they're trying to indoctrinate people with what I call scientism as opposed to science.

Andy Steele:

No, that's right. And I don't know if they've said this directly, but the public has gotten this idea as if these buildings were two paper towel tubes just sitting there. And they think that the floors would just kind of pancake, which NIST throughout the pancake collapsed scenario.

So a lot of these debunkers and people like Mike Shermer, I saw him do this at a public talk and I called him out on it. I didn't go expecting to get any public confrontation with Michael Shermer, but he was just wrong on the official story he was defending. Most of these people have no idea what they're even defending. They're just sort of piecing it together.

I mean, years ago, Nova had a graphic of the twin towers coming down and they say that the towers pancaked, that the floors pancaked on each other, and they show of floors hitting each other and there's the core structure. And they're coming down the core structure, hitting each other, pancaking but the core structures are still standing. It's like records on a spindle.

And that all looks good in a video game that Nova comes up with, but that's not what happened in real life. You've got to look at the videos and see what actually happened. There was no core structure still standing at the end. So a lot of times when they're putting this together, trying to understand what NIST is saying and what we're saying, if they bother to try, they don't even put it together accurately.

And again, I'm not going to beat up on the people who design these pieces too much, especially if you're not fixating on this every single day like the people who are interested in this, the interested parties are, but it just goes to show you how the public is so misinformed and really doesn't have a lot of information. And that's why they do these things like throw these numbers at you and create these puff pieces, this appeal to authority, because when you actually peel away what they're saying, it's clear, they aren't making any logical sense. All right, clip number five.

 

Clip 5:

The World Trade Center towers were attacked with approximately 185 tons of aircraft, carrying 75 tons of jet fuel. Though the structure seemed to withstand the impact, the explosions and the subsequent heat from the burning jet fuel were beyond its limits. The nearly 2000 degree temperature would eventually take its toll.

McAllister:

All of the failure occurred at the aircraft damage level and above. And once that tipped a little bit and started to come down, then the rest of the building failed. And some people questioned, oh, I saw puffs of smoke or something as a building was collapsing. Well, think about it, as each floor is starting to collapse down, all the dry wall and all the things that are in each floor level is getting pushed out sideways.

 

Andy Steele:

All right, so they're making reference to the squibs, which are far below the collapse line of the Twin Towers. As they're coming down, you can see the collapse, alleged collapse happening up here. I know nobody can see me, but I'm holding my hand up and you see the squibs happening down here.

And when you look at them, you can see these are not just puffs of air being pushed out of the windows because of a piston effect, which they've tried to claim. I haven't heard them make this claim in years, maybe they'll dust it off in hearing this broadcast, but there's building materials in these squibs. All right. And again, far below where any action is happening high above. Also, they make reference to how the damage started at the top of the Twin Towers, as if a top down can control demolition is in just an impossibility. It never ever happens when in fact it does happen. You can see examples of it on YouTube.

Now, the reason, of course, you'd have to do a top-down controlled demolition on the Twin Towers, because if you're trained to deliberately demolish this building, and of course you don't want people to know that you're actually demolishing it, you want to make it look like a natural thing that happened here to fit into the story that you're going to be pushing to the American public and selling us wars and loss of civil liberties on, you're going to choose top down controlled demolition.

I think we can all establish the argument is about whether or not this was a deceptive event. If you're being deceptive, you're going to pick the mode that is the way that it can help you carry out that deception. So the fact that she's talking about the action starting at the top, and this is somehow evidence of something, yeah, when you're trying to fool the American public, of course, they're going to pick something.

If it happened from the bottom, I mean, NIST would probably still be pushing an official story that doesn't make any sense, even more so, but there'd be a lot more people questioning this, because it wouldn't have made any sense. It would've made even less sense. Kamal, your thought?

Kamal Obeid:

Yeah. I'll just say a couple of words and then I've got to run. I'm sorry. But I mean, this is a beautiful Hollywood production, I'm talking about the actual demolition of the towers, the destruction of the towers. It's very well done, I must say.

And it creates this believability that how the buildings, how it looked, that the top first was hit and then the hole was created and the top of the towers started tilting, and then all of a sudden the whole thing just drove down perfectly. That's an awesome, I think that's an awesome production. How they did that is, I must say my hats off to whoever put that show together, and it really did its job.

Andy Steele:

Kent?

Kent Rattan:

Yeah. Nowadays, she mentioned among all the people that they've interviewed and all of the reams of documents that they have reviewed and possibly read, she doesn't mention William Rodriguez, the maintenance and physical plant engineer who has testified to anybody that will listen, let alone us. I mean, he has testified and it's on the record, there were explosions in the basements where he was of the North Tower. That was definitely before the plane impacted that tower. How do they explain that? They don't, they just ignore it.

Andy Steele:

Well, again, it's not part of the evidence that they're cherry picking. It's not part of those numbers is that they flash in front of you beforehand. So it's, I don't care about the numbers that you give me, I care about the conclusion you came to from that evidence and how much it makes sense or doesn't make sense. And of course, when your conclusion is wrong, it doesn't matter what you look at.

They should be looking at more. They should be looking at less pieces and more significant evidence. And it's interesting, Kamal says about how they put together this Hollywood production and this hippies. There's actually Hollywood movies that get the whole concept right, where NIST gets things wrong. I remember there was a movie, I can't remember the name of it where an airplane clips the top of the Washington Monument, the top of it falls, crushes a little bit of the way, but then destroys itself.

I know it was a different kind of building structure, but the physics are pretty much the same. I think it's also in Wonder Woman where she's a weapon herself. She crashes into the top of a building. The top of it comes down and crushes a little bit, but also destroys itself, terrible movies, both of these, but at least on that point, they get something right as that, this is what would happen.

Kent Rattan:

Ms. Therese McAllister is no Wonder Woman. She might be a very good NIST employee, but she is not a wonder woman. And she has a legitimate PhD. I respect that. I don't respect the fact that a legitimate PhD in materials I think is what her doctorate was in, actually can say these things with a straight face.

Andy Steele:

Now, part of the job is PR in any job. I mean, I was a customer service rep, and sometimes you had to explain things that didn't make any sense to people. This was for an insurance company. Luckily I'm not in that business anymore, but it obviously doesn't make any sense, but you try to whizzbang people and explain it in such a way that you're actually helping them and not robbing them of money that they were owed there.

But that's a discussion for another day. And I know Kamal has to go at this moment, so we're going to let him go. He is a very busy guy, but thank you Kamal for coming on. I'm going to ride this in until the end here because we've got one more clip and then we're going to share some final thoughts here between me and Kent. So let's go ahead and play the last segment of this piece here.

 

Clip 6:

McAllister:

If you understand what's of required to do control demolition, what you'll see is you have to go around each column, the vertical members that are holding the building up and very carefully prepare them. You have to pull everything away. You've got to sometimes make cuts into the members and you've got to put materials and explosives next to them.

You've got to do all this on a number of the columns with nobody noticing, with nobody being aware. And these buildings were occupied and under surveillance and security, 24/7. So one, the chance of that happening was just unrealistic. And two, there's absolutely no evidence that anything like that took place.

 

Andy Steele:

Right. Nothing sneaky ever happens in history. I mean, if you're going to hijack airplanes on September 11th, you've got to get box cutters on. You've got to get past airport security, you've got to get funding. You've got to operate and train. Actually, they acknowledge that all that happened, but anything further, anything further that challenges their final conclusion could just not be happening.

Nobody ever does anything sneaky. But again, this is just another terrible unscientific argument that just completely tries to ignore any evidence showing that the buildings were brought down with demolition, dismissing facts by just saying, no, it could never happen. It's like, imagine this scenario and I may have said this before on the show, but imagine you've got some rich person who lived in a big mansion surrounded by a really big iron gate. All right. And they've got guards stationed all over that gate. And then one day this rich person is found dead.

Now, you're a forensic analyst here. You do an analysis of their body. And you find that the evidence shows that they were repeatedly shot in the back of the head 20 times. And that the gun had to be reloaded twice during this process. But then the rest of the police come in, they go ahead and they rule it a suicide. Even though this is forensically impossible from what you see here, and they use the excuse, well, how could someone have gotten into this place? It's well guarded. It's just, I mean, somebody would've seen somebody coming in. This guy can't be a murderer. He was in here alone the whole time.

Well, that's not what the evidence shows, and that's really the crux of this. So regardless of her speculation, that's all it is, speculation and how it was done, how it would've had to have been done, it's just not possible. That is not scientific Ms. McAllister, not scientific at all.

And just like in that scenario, how well guarded the mansion is, becomes the excuse for not looking into the death any further, that's what they're doing here with the World Trade Center. Anyway, Kent, your thoughts.

Kent Rattan:

Well, and it's a well-known principle of work that is supposed to not be publicized to compartmentalize that information. It's a need to know basis. For instance, another Manhattan project, the atomic bomb in World War II was, there were about 140,000 different people that worked on some aspect of it. And they kept that secret very well. None of them knew.

I don't think that it would be terribly difficult, and I'm not saying how it happened or anything else, but I don't think it would be terribly difficult to plant explosives and thermitic devices, materials in the core of those buildings. It's just not, it's 110 floors. So what? You just ride the elevator cars up, you get on top of it, just like you do with a freight elevator and you go up one floor at a time. It wouldn't take that long, I don't think.

There were thermitic explosions, the thermitic materials in the dust. And she claims that there's no evidence. Well, yes, it's all around. It was all over Manhattan, two inches thick. There was evidence of active thermitic materials and it's in Niels Harrit's, peer-reviewed paper. It's never been refuted whatsoever, that plus the byproduct of thermitic explosions, which were the iron micro-spheres, there were billions of them.

So they didn't look, it wouldn't support their foregone conclusion, their story that they wanted to tell, that they spent a lot of money telling. And as far as it being a black box, it certainly is a black box. It's like Building 7 is a black box. We have submitted a very detailed, a very thorough request for corrections to NIST for Building 7 . And they took as long as they possibly could to get back to us.

This was Ted Walter's well, well-researched request for correction, and they didn't even look at it, I don't think. They put a PR person out again on the very last day to basically blow us off. That's not the way science is done either.

Andy Steele:

Right. And that's basically the essence of it. This argument that, oh, it would've taken this kind of work so it couldn't have happened, as if nothing sneaky ever happens in the world as if, if somebody wanted to go work for the government at a very high level, that they don't have to go through an entire background check. Why? Because espionage happens, because people do some pretty sneaky and bad things. That is why.

When you overlook evidence that something happened and just dismiss it saying, I don't see how it could have happened. Well, that's not really your job. Your job is to present what actually did happen, a forensic analysis. And of course in this story, doesn't make sense. Any logical sense, it's provably wrong, false data and all of that.

Controlled demolition is what happened. It's the job of the government to figure out how it happened. But first of course, our job is to get the government to acknowledge what's right in front of their faces. Now, we are at the end of this and I'm not going to turn this into an hour-and-a-half episode here, but there's an article also that just came out, well, essay, just came out. It came out around the anniversary on NISTS's blog called "20 Years Later, NIST World Trade Center Investigation and its Legacy." And it's written by Shyam Sunder.

There's not much of any significance in this article when you look it over, and maybe we'll discuss this more in future pieces, whether it's on Free Fall or in another medium, but why were they doing this around the 20th anniversary? Well, one answer of course is probably because it was the 20th anniversary, but also, too, and I'm sure our audience is aware that AE911Truth was almost on HBO as part of Spike Lee's documentary.

And like for instance, here we have the article from Shyam Sunder being published on August 18th, four days before the air date of the first episode of this docu-series, and Spike Lee was interviewing Shyam Sunder as well. So they knew that this was coming out. So basically this may have been a preemptive defense against whatever attention would've come NIST's way because of that series.

And, of course, you have that piece that we spent this entire hour analyzing as well. So they are scared. They are scared, the fact that they're going through this effort, this very sloppy effort to try to reinforce this in the minds of people. I mean, folks, most comments that I see regarding 9/11 videos, just mainstream 9/11 videos on YouTube are questioning the official narrative.

In the minds of most of the public, I would say they've overwhelmingly lost because even if people are just questioning it, not ready to commit, we've still won. We've still done our job there, but we've got to push it over the top. So it was fun breaking this down. We've got a minute left. Kent, any final thoughts?

Kent Rattan:

Well, I think that they were coming out, like you said, preemptively with Shyam Sunder's blog post. And he was aware the Spike Lee was intending to have a half hour devoted to our group and the World Trade Center disaster. So it was a way of giving a booster shot basically.

And that's what Ms. McAllister's piece is all about, too, for people that don't read, for people that just watch MTV and whatnot. I don't want to cater down to be patronizing at all. These kids are smarter than we give them credit for. And when they're patronized in this way, it's really an insult. It's an insult to everybody.

Andy Steele:

Also, I just want to let our audience still, I requested equal time for AE911Truth. And Roland Angle, our CEO, would be ready and rearing to go to be interviewed for an equal time segment presenting our side of it. That's what I sent to NBC LX. I didn't say it that way. I put it in a little bit more polite terms, but I still haven't heard back from them, so we'll see if we hear anything back. Well, Kent, thank you so much for taking the time today and much thanks to Kamal and thanks for coming on 9/11 Free Fall.

Kent Rattan:

Well, thank you very much, Andy. And thank you, Kamal if you can hear us. It's been a real honor and we have to do these things. We have to fight the propaganda with the tools that we have, which are the facts. And it's always an honor to do it.