This breakdown of Calling Out Bravo 7, has been written by a long time friend, who shall be called, Conspiracy Realist. He has been instrumental in my journey of starting to write about 9/11 over two years ago, and if you haven’t yet, read his 9/11 Reality Series of 7 articles.
The 9/11 Reality series and this breakdown of Calling Out Bravo 7 is unapologetic, because after 23 years, there is still too much disinformation peddled to good intentioned truth seekers. Through my interactions with the truther talking heads and interactions with truth seekers, it’s amazing to see how little people have really looked into the various narratives being sold to them and how little critical thinking and intellectual humility is employed, by people deeming themselves truth seekers.
Let’s fall headlong into Conspiracy Realist’s breakdown of Calling Out Bravo 7.
What drew my attention to the so-called movie Calling Out Bravo7 was Curt Weldon and his interviews (AE911T, Clayton Morris-Redacted, Tucker Carlson and Patrick Bet-David) over the past 6 months was him touting Calling Out Bravo7 as core information to understand 9/11. In those interviews and especially after the appointment of Anna Paulina Luna as the subcommittee chairperson for the release of the Government Secrets, Weldon pushed hard for Trump to establish 9/11 Presidential Commission to investigate the ‘collapse’ of three WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 (not all 7 WTC buildings such as 3, 4, 5 and 6) on 9/11. This intentionally false information was included in the header of each page of the document.
The treasonous duplicity of not mentioning 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the 9/11 Presidential Commission document cannot be overstated. It proves that Weldon, his interviewers and the 9/11 Truther cabal (IC911J, AE911T and etcetera) are a limited hangout, consciously trying to keep what really happened on 9/11 from the public mind.
Weldon’s interview on Redacted generated a devastating quote proving him to be confused, conflicted, compromised and an utter fraud. (5 min -Rumble link)
Dirt WellDone interview on Redacted: Well I was at the trade center I got a call from New York firefighters in the Fire Commissioner when 911 happened to get up there because they needed help and I've been here, 93. So I went up on the first Amtrak train and when they picked me up at the station in New York and drove me down, we couldn't get down to ground zero we had to walk. And we would be on the Ground Zero and I stayed with the fire department at Ground Zero. So I was there on the scene. Not as a politician as a firefighter with the New York Fire Department as I was in 93 and there's no way that those towers that I had been to as a citizen and what was left there. Was the remnants of those towers. There's just no way. I mean, I saw I was there. And there's no way that those towers that I had been to as a citizen that what was left there was the remnants of those towers. There's just no way. I mean, I saw I was there.
These blurted words from Weldon point out that the debris pile of the Twin Towers was impossibly small to account for the 500,000 tons of building materials in each Tower. Alleged BigBoeing airliners, smoldering office fires, pancake collapse, controlled demolition explosives, and/or incendiaries cannot and did not cause the building materials to vanish. Directed Energy Weapons is a plausible explanation for 98% of the building materials to dematerialize. The Interview of NYFD members at ground zero two days after 9/11 confirm that the debris pile was essentially nothing to account for what stood before.
Before and after the DEW attack
NOAA LIDAR dated 09/16-23/2001
Of all the countless lies, falsehoods, misdirections, truth-treason and mind rape throughout Calling Out Bravo7, the most suicidal was its discussion of WTC5 concerning available water resources required to fight the fires in WCT7.
The firefighting effort at WTC5, immediately above WTC6 and next to WTC7, disproved the NYC lie there was insufficient water to fight WTC7.
Neither NIST, the NYFD, the NYPD, NYC, NY State, the UNITED STATES or COB7 ever explain how the fire started in WTC5 much less why it was never investigated.
What actually happened to the 9/11 Orphans (3, 4, 5 and 6) forces the reader to recognize that DEW were used to destroy all 7 WTC buildings and further demonstrates the 9/11 official narrative and alternative narratives found in COB7 to be knowingly false and capital treason.
Listening to the recorded radio communication from Orio Palmer below, as he ascended the South Tower to put out two low intensity fires, calling for only two hoses, was moving and worth wading through all the LIES. (2 min clip)
During his ascent he made no mention of the building being wired for controlled demolition. When TT2 came down, he was dis-integrated into dust by the DEW, not burned up, not crushed and not exploded. For the sake of Orio Palmer, his wife and family, they should know what really happened on 9/11 and who is covering up. The reality of 9/11 is solely explained by Dr. Judy Wood in her book Where Did The Towers Go?
Analysis and comments on this movie are limited, not exhaustive, but illustrative.
The movie demonstrates gross fundamental errors and misrepresentations sufficient to determine that it is fallacious and fraudulent.
The controlled demolition and / or thermite ‘did it’ assertions found in Calling Out Bravo7 are baseless.
Its participants, creators or proponents are either duped fools or collaborators in covering up what really happened on 9/11.
Calling Out Bravo7 moves the curious away from what really happened on 9/11 and shields the Perpetrators, whoever they / that may be. Shame on them!!
Accordingly, the title of this interlinear commentary is Calling Out Bravo7 Bullshit.
The transcript was auto generated by MS Word. Corrections have been made as best possible while listening through and commenting.
Fire Service Motto: Non Sibi Sed Omnibus - Not for One’s Self but for All.
(Let’s see if the NYFD lives up to that Motto.)
COB7: Good morning. My name is. Christopher Gioia, and I am commissioner with the Franklin Square Monson Fire District in the town of Franklin Square, NY.
As I'm sure you'll agree, the firefighting profession is one of the most trusted, respected and noble professions, and not without good reason. Amongst many other qualities, the firefighting profession is known for its solid reliability and integrity. Trust is of the utmost importance in Public safety.
The public needs to trust firefighters for us to do our job. They need to trust us with their personal property, their homes, their privacy, their safety, and the safety of their loved ones. I want our fighting forefathers established a very long legacy of trust and respect in our profession that we continue to uphold.
This solid reputation, which the public can always rely on in any situation, is something which we take great pride in and protect. You can trust firefighters to know their job. You can trust them to have your back.
You can trust them to be honest.
Trust them to serve your best interests and when facing great risk to themselves, you can trust them with your safety and even your life. Please take your time to examine and consider the details shared in Calling Out Bravo7.
This film was produced by Active Duty and retired Firefighters.
Narrator (?): Given their capacity for exponential growth, high rise fires present one of the greatest challenges to firefighters today. Due to limited access from outside by ladders and the ease with which occupants and rescuers can become trapped, fires in these structures pose a profound threat to life and property.
High rise buildings are of course designed with these considerations in mind.
They are therefore built to contain fire, protect exit routes and employ architectural Fire Protection Measures to prevent structural fire damage. National Fire Service operational procedures provide clear guidance in dealing with these situations and aim to maximize the effectiveness of firefighting and rescue operations whilst minimizing risk. In agreement with these specific architectural fire resistant qualities, firefighting procedures recommend the deployment of personnel into the building. Teams advance up towards the fire, deep into the building if necessary.
A control point called a bridgehead is established 2 floors below the fire so the operations can be controlled from an advanced point. This allows the sets of preventive control points so firefighters going to fight fires and carry out rescues can be recorded and crucially have their breathing apparatus checked so it's clear how much time they can spend in a dangerous smoke filled area.
The amount of time each firefighter can spend fighting the fire is limited. By the amount of air available, so any minute spent climbing up into a building with equipment is precious firefighting time wasted. Firefighters enter these situations confidently for good reasons. In history, there have been many instances where high-rise fires have been very advanced and aggressive and in agreement with what the building designers specify the structure stay true and intact.
According to a 2011 U.S. National Fire Protection Association report, there are an average of 110 high rise fires per year in the US alone. Between 2005 and 2009, there were 550 high rise fires. Some of the most notable in history include the Uelma building Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1974. Sparked by an electrical fire, this residential building burned for several hours. The underlying structure was not weakened.
In fact, it's still in use today. The MGM Grand, which is now Bally's in Las Vegas, caught fire in 1980, killing 85 people. It's had a few facelifts and ownership changes, but the structure underneath was never compromised. It's still in use today.
Los Angeles, 1988, what was then called the First Interstate Bank Building burned for 3 1/2 hours. No structural failure at all. In fact, the insurance company moved in and today known as the Aeon Center. 2004 The Parque Central Caracas, Venezuela countries tallest building burned for 17 hours. The façade was repaired, and it is still in use today. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1 Meridian Plaza, 1991 burned for 18 hours.
It was refurbished. Beijing, China. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel burned for six hours in 2009. It stood. Chechnya's tallest building burned for seven hours in April 2013. It stood. Dubai, Moscow, Zurich and many others showed the same results. This is why firefighters continue to commit into these buildings to deal with fires like those seen in September 2001 in New York and recently at Grenfell Towers in London. The firefighters in New York had absolutely no reason to suspect that those buildings could catastrophically fail due to fires. They knew there was a danger. It's absolutely not from complete and sudden building failure. Firefighters are not mindless fools.
They too have families to go home to and provide for. They will take calculated risks when people's lives are at risk and there is a strong likelihood of saving lives without a doubt. But they will not take suicidal risks. The full looking into one particular high rise fire which is not commonly known about and even less well understood. We need to digress slightly and establish an honest foundation and starting point.
We live in a phenomenally complex modern world. Its strange and it's difficult to understand with certainty and at times it's bewildering in its complexity. It's incredible. But when broken down there is essentially just two main systems, organizational systems based from man made rules and physical systems Governed by nature. The man made systems It's just not so reliable. But if you were to ask a great physicist, he or she explained that when you look at the details of the physical system, the rules of the game are quite simple.
The mechanical rules which govern the state of play, every atom, all matter and energy. It all obeys the steady stream of fundamental, simple rules, simple rules of nature which are fixed, immutable and universal rules which have recognized provide us with the perfect data for measuring, for testing and for knowing exactly where we stand.
The subject that's about to be considered has somehow become obscured by stigma, overcomplicated within a web of complex information, technical arguments and misconceptions. But its complexity contains within it the seed of Self-destruction and the irrefutable facts based upon a simple law of nature. When exploring this you can choose to be blown around like a leaf in the wind of mainstream consensus opinion, or we can confidently walk the path of evidence based science. For some, sadly, anything beyond Mainstream consensus opinion is out of bounds And beyond debate. But as Michael Creighton so wisely said, historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
It's a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
However, science has Nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science on the contrary requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world in science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. Science fearlessly and honestly follows the data and the evidence wherever they lead. It seeks no comfortable sanctuary and cuts through all opinion. Consensus prefers popularity, while science, science with the truth and only the truth.
Making no assumptions, we must now quickly but unapologetically provide some very basic high school physics. The use of the words freefall to describe parachutists is in fact technically wrong. As you can see, these skydivers are experiencing varying degrees of air resistance, which is slowing them down.
In Newtonian physics, freefall is defined as any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it.
Under such conditions, all objects will fall with the same rate of acceleration regardless of their mass. If we were to lift the bowling ball and some feathers, then drop them together through the air, the feathers would obviously fall slower because of air resistance if we remove that resistance by creating a vacuum as demonstrated.
This huge NASA vacuum chamber, the world's biggest. Both the feather and the ball drop at the same rate of true freefall. Freefall is only possible when there's absolutely no resistance. Zero resistance acting against the fall.
At 5:21 PM on September the 11th, 2001, this steel framed high rise collapsed at freefall. It dropped like a rock due to normal office fires, according to the government's Final Report.
NIST: World Trade Center 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from fuel oil fires.
Dan Rather: For the third time today. Reminiscent of those pictures we have all seen too much in television before when a building is deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.
I turned it time to figure out what looked like a skyscraper implosion. Looked like it had been done by demolition crew. The whole thing is collapsing down on itself if.
It almost as if it were a planned implosion. It just pancakes.
This sound, the sound like a clap of Thunder. Looks like there was a shockwave. Windows all busted out about a second later the bottom floor caved out the building followed after that.
For a large building, 100 meters side to side to fall with a level of roof line at free fall straight down to its own structure, the entire building structural integrity must have been removed simultaneously and instantaneously. Even a small amount of resistance would have been measurable as reduced downward acceleration.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Full stop. About 2 seconds of WTC7 coming down was recorded at freefall and not the entire ~ 7 seconds!! Removing the entire building structural integrity of WTC7 in AN INSTANT … requires definition.
What does that mean?
How was that accomplished?
What technology was used?
Everywhere throughout the building? Only at the vertical columns?
Internal or external columns?
There was no external, visible preparation for that to happen. Why did the internal contents, non-load bearing walls and floor building materials for 47 floors apparently have no deceleration effects on WTC7 as it came down?
With its façade largely intact at initiation, where did this structural removal commence, top, bottom, everywhere?
Controlled Demolition cuts the structural building material into chunks; was that evident in the debris pile? No!
How Building Implosions Work | By: Tom Harris | Updated: Mar 7, 2024
In the last section, we saw how blasters plan out a building implosion. Once they have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the building. The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building.
Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building.
This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse.
Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.
Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives. Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and …
What would have caused or allowed the building to fall at free fall acceleration?
In freefall there is no resistance to the falling object being accelerated by gravity, not even air resistance. Was WTC7 enveloped in a vacuum chamber for its free fall period of time?
Where did the mass of the building materials go? Where did the contents inside the building (toilets, chairs, file cabinets, tables, etcetera) go? Those contents would have slowed the fall of WTC7 to slower than free fall.
Was WTC7 enveloped in a vacuum chamber? No.
How, by what means did the period of freefall happen?
What external, atypical force was pushing WTC7 down to match the freefall portion seen during the coming down of WTC7?
If a majority of the building material ‘disappeared’, how did that happen? Even if the majority of the building material did disappear, that does not explain how the remaining building material moved at free fall acceleration. Controlled demolition, incendiaries do not cause the annihilation of building material much less create external invisible force fields.
Has freefall acceleration ever been evident in ANY building controlled demolition before or after 911? If yes, where and when? If no, then what caused the freefall time period when WTC7 was coming down?
Freefall of WTC7 for any time period eliminates controlled demolition as an explanation; it does not establish or support controlled demolition as a valid explanation.
Sherlock Holmes: “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”
COB7: Any lack of symmetry in the resistance would have caused the building to tumble instead of coming straight down through its own structure. Any breaking bending. Pushing or pulverizing of the buildings components would create resistance and in turn prevents all the gravitational potential energy of the building from being converted completely into kinetic energy and therefore in turn inhibits the freefall.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
EXACTLY. Whatever was left of WTC7 when it came down, there was essentially no resistance to it coming down. So, anyone or any explanation MUST explain how the building was somehow enveloped in a vacuum or how AND where did all of the building internals, structure and content go.
How was the elimination/disintegration of building materials accomplished? Saying it happened does not explain how it happened.
Fires cannot and did not make the building material and contents go away. Controlled Demolition does not disappear the building materials.
Controlled Demolition TAKES GREAT PAINS TO REMOVE the building internal contents beforehand since those randomly organized contents will absorb the kinetic energy of the building materials/steel beams/etcetera, slow its coming down or affect the manner and direction in which the building comes down.
COB7: Roland Angel: This is high school physics.
Jonathan Smolens: A building cannot do free fall with 40,000 tons of structural steel and its structural system.
Richard Gage: This is rather incredible. You cannot have a building falling at freefall, which means not one of those columns gave any resistance.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Free fall of WTC7 for any segment of time requires much more than all the vertical columns losing their integrity and resistance simultaneously.
How and Where the resistance was severed? Where did the mass of those columns go? There was no sound of explosions immediately before WTC7 came down.
All of the interior structural components, floors and internal contents also had to ‘go away’ or they would have provided some resistance, affected the time of fall and changed the trajectory of WTC7.
Where did all of the interior mass go? The recent earthquake in Bangkok provides VITAL visual comparison.
Following is an excerpt from the May 23, 2025 letter to Rep. Anna Paulina Luna:
Bangkok skyscraper (33 stories) under construction collapses after deadly Southeast Asia earthquake
The 33 floor, concrete building, debris pile after the earthquake. Rescuers work at the site of a high-rise building under construction that collapsed after a 7.7 magnitude earthquake in Bangkok, Thailand, Friday, March 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Wason Wanichakorn)
Reinforced concrete construction of the high rise building that collapsed after recent Indonesia / Myanmar earthquake created a pancake like stack of the floors.
Why Did Bangkok 33-Story Building COLLAPSE? Chinese Crime?
33 story building collapsed to 6 stories high. Time index 1:00. 6/33 = 18%
This building was fully empty, without any internal finish out.
Each of the Twin Towers were 1360+ feet of steel beam construction (not a steel reinforced concrete construction), which should have a generated a MINIMUM stack height of 200+ feet or much higher. But no, both of the 110 story Twin Towers were essentially down flat to the ground.
Note the relative height of the NYFD personnel to the debris stack. Not including the small remnant of the standing exterior columns, the TT debris stack is 20-30 feet high. A controlled demolition of each TT would have resulted in 2 debris stacks, each at least 200’ tall and more likely 250’. Neither of the TTs had been emptied of their contents, WHICH IS ALWAYS DONE BEFORE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS INITIATED!!
Neither WTC7 nor the TTs were brought down by controlled demolition or thermite, which is a science-based, necessary conclusion based on the simple FACT-EVIDENCE that chemical technologies do not cause building materials to disintegrate into nothingness.
Those who push the Controlled Demolition / Thermite lies are mind-raping in real time, using neurolinguistic programming to erase one’s critical thinking skills. The missing debris evidence not being explained or even discussed in Calling Out Bravo7 exposes the entire ‘movie’ as fraudulent.
Its creators / participants / proponents are functioning as co-conspirators with the 9/11 Perpetrators. More examples of this fraud will be covered to illustrate how diminished or depraved are the participants and creators of Calling Out Bravo7.
WTC7 was robustly built with steel reinforced concrete floors. WTC7 had 47 stories and 610 feet in height. Based on the collapse of buildings in Bangkok, 18% x 47 stories = 8.5 stories or .18 x 610 110’. The debris pile should have been taller than WTC6.
WTC6 was immediately between WTC7 and WTC1 and 93’ tall. This image illustrates the WTC7 debris pile was about 20+ feet high and not 110’ high.
Where did all the building materials go?
On 911 WTC6 was scooped out with about 50% of its mass gone. This damage evidence is irrefutable. The WTC6 physical evidence does not explain exactly how the building material mass of WTC7 disappeared but WTC6 does prove that whatever technology was used on 9/11, it can cause building materials to simply disappear.
Office fires cannot cause building materials to disappear, neither can Controlled Demolition explosives or incendiaries like thermite. ANYONE who failsto recognize, refuses to accept and does not affirm the bizarre missing building materials at WTC6 and WTC7 is a FRAUD.
Roland Angle, Jonathan Smolens, Richard Gage, James Corbett, David Chandler, AE911T, Ted Walter, Curt Weldon and etcetera are willful FRAUDS. They continue pushing fact free mind control, which makes them complicit in the cover up of what really happened on 9/11.
The movie continues.
COB7: Narrator: The building we are discussing is of course the Solomon Brothers building in Downtown Manhattan, also known as World Trade Center 7 or just Building 7. Constructed in 1987, it was a modern steel framed high rise. It was a 47 story Class A fully fire protective structure with reinforced concrete floors built around 82 solid steel structural columns rooted it into a Manhattan bedrock, 58 perimeter and 24 core columns.
It stood an impressive 610 feet tall as a highly fire protective structure. It had three hour fire resistance ratings for all the columns and two hour fire resistance ratings for the floor assemblies. Here for contrast, you can see construction worker walking next door over huge columns. The design was so robust that prospective tenants were offered the option of removing entire floors to create high bays, which was done higher up in the building.
But we really couldn't see a lot of damage from this angle from the north side of the structure. That's why everybody is so surprised when all of a sudden it just it just fell.
Narrator: This building’s destruction was investigated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST.
The simple observation of freefall should have been the starting point for their investigation. They recognize the huge implications of what freefall indicated.
NIST: Free fall time … a freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
Narrator: But they refused to acknowledge it in their investigation until they were backed into a corner by a high school physics teacher named David Chandler.
David Chandler: A student took a video of me dropping a soccer ball from a ladder and imported the video into tracker, then marked the position of the ball in each. Tracker captures the position and time data from which you can compute velocity and acceleration and graph anything versus anything else basically.
This is the graph of velocity versus time for that soccer ball as it's dropped. And notice that the slope that this basically is a linear graph when you take velocity versus time. Note here the slope was nearly constant acceleration, Note here the slope is nearly constant at about 9.8 meters per second squared. Notice how in the end it deviates from a straight line, because as the speed builds up the the drag increases and so you're actually getting a little bit of a noticeable effect due to air resistance even just from a ball dropping a few meters like that.
OK, so air resistance, as subtle a force as it is, is detectable. This is the graph for the roof line of WTC Seven. Note that for well over 2 seconds. The graph is linear, so the acceleration is similar to the soccer ball, the acceleration is constant. The slope of the linear portion of the graph is essentially equal to the acceleration of gravity within the margin of error of the measurements. In other words, for this building, even though it is falling straight down through its own supporting structure, freefall, actually happened.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
So David Chandler … for over 2 seconds WTC7 fell through nothing, kinda like the soccer ball falling through the air, although air is not nothing, not a vacuum.
Where did the mass of those 8 floors go?
The measured free fall acceleration demonstrated no resistance from any of the internal or external building material or the contents. How did that happen?
What destructive mechanism can cause such a disappearance of 8 floors of building material? C4-TNT-Thermite? Removing the vertical support of all 84 columns (But, visibly all external columns did not simply disappear.) would not account for the resistance of internal building material of its 47 floors as it came down; they would have to disappear too. What could cause the instantaneous removal of the columns and floors?
NO EXPLOSIONS WERE HEARD FROM WTC7 immediately before it came down.
For any portion of WTC7 to have accelerated at free fall demonstrates that something other than Controlled Demolition or Thermite BECAUSE those explanations do not account for the mass disappearing.
COB7: Notice also that there's a sharp onset of freefall. The building is holding steady. Then it simply lets go the approximately 2 1/2 seconds of freefall. It falls over 100 feet. Equivalent of about 8 stories. Free fall is motion under the influence of gravity alone. All resistance must be removed. Some people argue that the resistance in the case of WTC 7 was not significant because the falling mass was so great. It's true, the falling mass was great. But the strength of the supporting structure was even greater.
The structure was built to support three to five times the actual load. When it does eventually engage the structure,
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Time Index 21 minutes: What is ‘it’?
Define it.
Define what was missing for that 100 feet of freefall and how that ‘missing’ happen?
What technology caused those ‘8 floors’ to go away?
How was a vacuum created to eliminate the air resistance drag?
COB7: The rate of acceleration slows, then actually decelerates. Amazingly someone at NIST added a nice straight red regression line through their stage two data, they even gave you equation of the line which shows that the slope is exactly equal to the acceleration of gravity. So that red line is a flat out absolute admission. They're even closer to the acceleration of gravity than my measurements. They are right smack on the money.
They're on that number for the accepted those acceleration of gravity in feet units. OK 32 The red line on this route means that NIST acknowledges WT7 came down without resistance and without doing any work for over 100 feet. That means all support for eight stories was suddenly removed by something other than the falling mass.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
How was it suddenly removed? What technology? What was the destructive means?
How was the resistance to air removed during that 2+ seconds of freefall.
The air resistance had to be removed as well. How?
Until these questions are believably answered (without arm waving histrionics of two-legged snakes like David Chandler, Richard Gage) WTC7 coming down at all cannot be explained by conventional means.
COB7: Adrian Mallet: The implications of building 7 coming down in freefall are huge for every fire service in the world. The reason for that is because when you fight the high rise building fire, what you do is you go to the floor below the fire, you establish a bridgehead. You then send breathing apparatus teams up with. Stairs onto the next floor where the fire actually is, together with water jets to go and find the fire, locate it, attack it, and put it out. You do not at any time think that the building you're actually stood in is suddenly going to collapse down into a pile of rubble in six seconds the way that building 7 did.
Come here, come on, let's go.
So it changes completely how you're going to fight high rise fires. Every procedure for fighting high rise. Buildings is gonna have to change. So for firefighters, everything's gonna change. For building engineers and architects, it's also gonna have to change because the unspoken acceptance before that, the building frame would always stay up because the fire can't get hot enough to take out a steel frame. Well, clearly according to NIST, now this can happen.
NIST: Our study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of the structure. For the first time, we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.
Narrator: When considered objectively from a professional fire fighters point of view, the office fires in Building 7 could have been easily controlled and extinguished relatively safely, especially if they'd been attacked early in the day as intended by the fire crews in the building before they were ordered. To evacuate.
The main fires in Seven had developed only on the handful of lower floors, the most visible being on floors 7 and 8, plus floors 12 and 13. There were other small fires on higher floors but they burned themselves out. The fire on the 12th floor in the North East corner is said to have caused a girder in the 13th flooring assembly to move off its seat, resulting in the buildings complete failure and collapse.
However, there are many problems with this theory. Debris from the collapse of the North Tower at 10:28 AM is officially suggested as the most likely source of ignition, but there are conflicting witness reports from inside the building before this time of smoke, heat and explosions.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Even if the reports of fire smoke and explosions are true, these reports are soon after TT1 came down AND NOT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE WTC7 came down over 6 hours later.
COB7: Barry Jennings: After I called several individuals. One individual told me to leave and leave right away. Mr. Hess came running back in. And so we're the only ones up there. We gotta get out of here. He found the stairwell. So when you when you subsequently with the stairwell and we're going down the stairs when we reach the 8th or the 6th floor.
The landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion in the landing gateway and when I was left there hanging I had to climb back up and now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor. After getting to the 8th, everything is gone. It was dark and it was very, very hot. Very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Firefighters came.
They came to the window. Because I was gonna come out on the fire hose. I didn't want to stay in. It was too hot. I was gonna come out of the fire hose. They came to the window and said they started yelling do not do that, just won't hold you. And then they ran away. See I did not know what was going on. That was when the first tower fell when they started running. The first tower was coming down.
I had no, I had no way of knowing. Then I saw them come back now. I saw him come back with more concern on their faces. Then they ran away again. The second tower fell. All this time. I'm hearing all types of explosions. All this time I am hearing explosions.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Again, the explosions heard by Jennings are at least 6 HOURS before WTC7 would come down. Assuming his recollections are correct, these explosions and fires must be investigated separately from any Controlled Demolition consideration for WTC7. It cannot be overstated that the explosions in a Controlled Demolition sequence are tightly orchestrated and come immediately before the building comes down. Explosions 6+ hours beforehand do not correlate to WTC7 coming later in the afternoon. Using Jennings testimony in support of CD or thermite being used to bring down WTC7 is reckless, incompetent or intentionally fraudulent.
COB7: Mr. Hess. What floor” Eighth Floor Seven World Trade Center.
Reporter: That is right. I am standing here right now, it's just off Broadway by City Hall with Michael Hess, who is the City Corporation Council. Mr. Hess, you were trapped inside, I believe, 7 World Trade Center. Go ahead, Sir.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
The testimony of Jennings and Hess stand hard against NIST and its conclusions and hard against those who claim controlled demolition for WTC7. Both are guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
COB7: Hess: Yes, I was. I was up in the Emergency Management center on the 23rd floor. And when all the power went out of the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion And we have been trapped on the 8th floor with smoke. Thick smoke blow around us for about an hour and a half.
Narrator: It's important to note that in Jennings full interview his adamant that the explosion he experienced was inside building 7. He saw both towers still standing after returning up to the 8th floor, the explosion which trapped him and Hess was not caused by the collapse of the towers.
Jennings: What happened was when we made it back to the 8th floor. As I told you earlier yes. Because I looked too. I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there. Got to the sixth flour. When I got to the 6th floor there was an explosion. That's what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings (Twin Towers) were still standing. Keep in mind I told you that the fire department came and when they came twice. Why? Because building power one fell their tower, two fell.
Narrator: For some unknown reason. On the morning of 9/11, Building 7's fire, automatic main scheme alarm system had been deactivated for 8 hours at 6:47. AM. As a Class A fire protected structure, Building 7 employed Blaze Shield Fire Protection fibre to give its flooring assemblies a minimum of two hours Fire Protection and its main supporting columns 3 hours Fire Protection.
It also had complete fire separation between floors. This means that the proposed source of ignition managed to ignite fires on several fire separated floors in an environment consisting of large amounts of suffocating dry powdered gypsum and concrete dust. In their description of the fires NIST states that WTC 7 endured fires for almost 7 hours. The fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and or failure to the building structure. To help reinforce their theory of fire induced building failure.
NIST repeatedly reaffirms that the fires were long lasting and uncontrolled. The argument of long lasting files is commonly used to explain building 7 collapse. This is in fact quite misleading. a member of the public might conclude from this that static locations within building setting was subjected to seven hours of continuous stress from uncontrolled fires.
However, a fire survival depends upon fuel availability. The fire will move from fuel to fuel, from combustible to combustible in accordance with ordinary fire physics, burning out and self extinguishing as it travels. The fuel for the fires in Seven was limited to ordinary office contents, with combustible load levels in the range of only 22 to 32 kilograms per square meter. There were no remotely fed static fires, such as fires fueled by pipes connected to diesel tanks, and no use of accelerants.
NIST actually admits that the fires were only able to survive for 20 to 30 minutes in any one location due to restricted fuel levels. The computer models proposed by NIST for the fire travel on the 12th floor don't actually correspond with observed in photographs reality, although they do conveniently create a theoretical fire which manages to travel around column 79 and burn for longer than the available fuel levels would allow.
One might speculate that the extended fire durations in this area are Modeled by NIST out of necessity to meet their hypothetical degree of thermal expansion. The actual photographic and video evidence of the 12th floor fires reveals that the fire had travelled from the South side of the building to the north side by the interior offices by 3:00 PM and had engulfed the North East corner by about 3:15 PM.
The observed fires on the 12th floor were as follows.
At 2:00 PM, the fire can be seen breaking out of the southeast face which is traveling N towards this viewpoint. 28 minutes later and the fire had moved N whilst dying down in the SE. Another 30 minutes in, the fire has moved to the. North Face starts traveling W from left to right as we look at it.
About 3:50 PM, it's 2/3 of the way across The North Face and visibly burning out to the left in the northeast corner, where the building is set to have failed at the column 79. Another 30 minutes later and the fire is mostly burned out on the 12th floor, which means that temperatures are starting to fall. NIST computerized model of catastrophic thermal expansion required maximum temperatures in the northeast corner to the left.
For the next hour until the building fails, but as can be seen, the fire on the 12th has burned out in that area and temperatures will be dropping. In the context of a heavily engineered modern Class A fire protected steel frame structure such as building 7 with only normal fire loading, a complete structural failure of the entire building would not have been realistically expected.
However, even though historically, no modern steel frame High Rise had ever failed in this way. Prior to this date this building was evacuated and cordoned off for several hours in advance with an almost certain anticipation of its complete and catastrophic structural failure.
NYFD: Keep you eye on that building. It is a bout to blow up.
Narrator: One of the reasons given for the decision not to attack the fires in Building 7 was a lack of water supplies. However, this claim does not stand up to proper scrutiny.
New York City, in lower Manhattan's menus for water supply has radically improved since the Dutch settled there in the early 1600s. Historically, it was actually the threat of fires which provided the main drive for more robust and reliable source of water supply.
There were significant fires in the 1830s in Manhattan, which led to the city looking upstate for the first time for a much more resilient water supply. The water is now derived from a large area covering 8 counties in New York State and the small slither of Connecticut. Board supplier system consists of 19 reservoirs and three controlled lakes as 580 billion gallons of water storage and serves 9.4 million people in New York City and upstate counties. New York City's water is gravity fed by large aqueducts flowing from north to South the Delaware and Catskill aqueduct systems.
The water pressure for lower Manhattan South of 14th Street is regulated before entering a network of multiple 20 inch north to South primary mains with 12 inch diameter secondary mains in each Street to provide water supplies to individual buildings. There are 20 inch primary mains in West St. Greenwich, W Broadway, Church Street and Broadway, bringing water South towards the World Trade Center. Additional water mains east of Broadway also contribute to the delivery capacity to Lower Manhattan. 20 inch east. And West names on principle East West streets such as Chambers, Vessey and Liberty interconnects with the north-south lines to create a primary distribution grid.
The combination of 20 inch primary and 12 inch second remains connects to a gravity fed supply with an enormous volume capacity represents a very robust water distribution. It was claimed by NIST Lead Investigator that Building Sevens fires were left to burn because of poor water availability and firefighting operations. NIST stated, had a water supplier for the automatic sprinkler system being available and it is likely that the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented. From a firefighters perspective, the claim of failed local water supplies as a reason for fire being left to burn makes little sense. Even in the most difficult situations, fire services will get water to an incident one way or another. It's one of the professions fundamental responsibilities.
If local suppliers are lacking, firefighters will seek other sources. Tap into them as quickly as possible, either from an alternative route to name a different location within the same water main, or from alternative water sources like the River Hudson. It was proposed by NIST that the water supply to Building 7 May have been compromised by damage from the falling towers in the morning, however, as explained the main’s water on Manhattan runs from north to South with Building 7 position north and upstream of the towers.
This diagram was produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and depicts the degree of impact from debris due to the collapse of the towers.
The impact of debris in the regional building 7 was prescribed as light and consisting mostly of aluminium cladding and other small debris. Here we can see debris from North Tower between Building 7 on the left and the Verizon building on the right. A 2002 privately commissioned fire science and engineering investigation specifically looked into the water supply available to firefighting operations on 9/11.
It's identified very healthy water pressures ranging from 44 to 60 PSI at the 14th St. pressure regulators between 6:40 AM and 11:50 AM on the morning of 9/11. Their report stated the collapse of the towers did not have any effect on pressures of the 14th St. regulators. Hydraulic calculations clearly show that the robust municipal water distribution system of Manhattan had the capacity to deliver even more water than was consumed.
The NIST reports themselves are littered with information identifying healthy water supplies after the collapse of the towers. This picture was taken shortly after 10:30 AM. Building 7 is in the background to the right behind the fire appliance at the corner of Barkley and Washington Street. Notice the swollen hose to living water to the pump the firefighters are operating the appliance and maneuvering a charged hose to put out a car fire in distance.
For operational effectiveness and obvious reasons, firefighters do not commit into to buildings without a proper and dependable water supply. Volume 1 of NIST structural fire response report reads between 11:00 AM and 12:00 noon, proximately 14 FDNY members arrived at WTC 7 with orders to put the fires out inside the WTC 7. Inside they surveyed conditions, reported seeing small fires.
The chief officer who had been. Inside the building, about 20 to 25 minutes went to the FDNY command post to report to the command post chief that he believed the fires inside of the WTC-7 could be extinguished. Thus, the chief went back to extinguish the fires. He would not have done this without the good water supply.
Here we can see World Trade Center Building 5, which was South of Seven but still had a good water supply for firefighting as the other locations have the Seven.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
WTC5 is one of the WTC Orphans (3, 4, 5 and 6).
They are ignored like the plague by likes of Gage, Chandler, Ted Walter, Kevin Ryan AE911T and Curt Weldon. WTC5 being mentioned at all in Calling Out Bravo7 is suicide.
Weldon, AE911T, Gage et al in the Presidential Commission on 9/11 willfully ignore WTC5, 3, 4 and 6. NIST did not mention 5 or 3, 4 and 6 in any of its reports.
The Presidential Commission on 9/11 being hawked by Weldon et al demands a new investigation of Buildings 1, 2 and 7 with NO MENTION of 3 through 6.
WTC 5 is immediately above WTC 6. How did WTC5 catch fire?
Why has WTC5 never been mentioned by TRAITORS at NIST and the LIARS at AE911T?
Burying WTC5 proves the conscious disinformation intent of AE911T, Gage, Weldon, the NYFD, this movie and all the limited hangout traitors.
They will do anything to direct public interest away from Where Did The Towers Go by Dr. Judy Wood.
Recognition of WTC5 facts PROVES Calling Out Bravo7 to be BULLSHIT.
COB7: Narrator: New York Harbor fire boats capable of delivering 10s of thousands of gallons of water every minute into the main system and to pumps on the fire ground had staged on the Hudson River and laid large diameter delivery hoses to the corner of Vessey and West Street and West Liberty.
In a formal legal interview. Under oath. FDNY Chief Peter Hayden of Division One was asked about water availability at Building 7. He confirmed that water was available and standpipes were in operation.
This footage also shows the sprinkler system in Building 7 delivering water to a lower floor. The 1st 20 lower floors were supplied with water from the street main system. According to all the evidence, what supplies clearly were not an issue for firefighting at Building 7.
BBC Reporter: We've got some news just coming in, actually, that the Solomon Brothers building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed. There were very few people in the Salomon building, when it collapsed.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Screenshot from the famous BBC clip when the female reporter states WTC7 has collapsed, but yet it is still standing in the background of the image over the reporter’s left shoulder and the left of her head. WTC7 had not yet come down, but everyone conveniently forgets about CNN reporting on Building 7 going down an HOUR before it did…
COB7: I mean, there were, I suppose, fears of possible further collapses around the area. That's what you would hope because this whole downtown area behind me has been completely sealed off and evacuated apart from the emergency workers. That was done by the mayor, Rudy Giuliani.
Ashley Banfield: That building right there, the brown building, the tall one is #7 World Trade Center for several reports from several different officers now. But that is the building that is going to go down next. In fact, one officer told me they're just waiting for that to come down at this point.
Narrator: Building 7 was not evacuated and left to burn because the fires were too severe, nor was it evacuated because of poor water supplies or because the building was an obvious danger of imminent structural failure and collapse from normal office fires. There has there been other reasons that we do not know about for its evacuation building. Building Seven’s collapse according to NIST, was the result of a series of accidental and unpredictable factors, factors which did not come together in such a way as to determine the fate of the building until minutes or possibly even seconds before the building sudden onset of failure.
Based upon these facts the lack of empirical precedence, this complete collapse could not have been realistically predicted. Yet we know from premature media reports and a textual evidence of the oral histories of the firefighters at the scene. That at least 60 firefighters had been told Building 7 was coming down.
Some were told this hours in advance. The fore knowledge being cascaded down too, and spreading among the operational firefighters came from within the Office of Emergency Management from New York City officials who somehow knew in advance that both the Twin Towers and Building 7 were going to be coming down. This information was also given to Mayor Giuliani. Causing him to evacuate building 7.
Giuliani: I saw People jumping out of the World Trade Center. I saw some of the firefighters who I know going into the building so, and we were in a building in which we were trapped for about 10-15 minutes. Are you talking about the, did you go immediately to the Office of Emergency Management?
I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters in 75 Barclay St. which was right there with the Police Commission of the Fire Commissioner, the head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Who told Giuliani that the WTC was going to collapse? Everyone NYC person in a position of authority was right there. Who told Giuliani it was going to collapse?!
COB7: And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building. So we were trapped in the building for 10-15 minutes and finally found an exit, got out, walked north and took a lot of people with us.
Narrator: This foreknowledge is verified in the oral histories of emergency responder Richard Zarrillo and EMT Emergency Medical Technician working in fire operations who when interviewed by the World Trade Centre Task Force on the 25th of October 2001, which stated that he'd been informed by the Office of Emergency Management. That the buildings, plural, we're going to be coming down and the first tower did come down very shortly after.
He reported this to his nearest fire chiefs and the Fire Commissioner. Not only are we being told that on this day the first steel frame Class A fully fire protected high-rise totally failed, primarily due to fire. but that three of these steel framed, super structures, fell on the same day. All, primarily due to fire. Coincidentally, all three owned or leased by the same person, Larry Silverstein, who's had the incredible foresight to purchase double indemnity insurance for the buildings against terror attacks not long beforehand.
In a TV interview Silverstein said that he had a consistent routine of having breakfast and coffee every morning at 8:00 AM when the World Trade Centre restaurant near his office called Windows on the World. But on the morning of September the 11th, he happened to have a dermatologist appointment and broke his routine.
He later became involved in the operation of the. When he claims he was called by the fire department commander to say that building seven fires could not be contained to reach, Silverstein curiously replied. We've had such a terrible loss of life, Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.
Silverstein: I remember getting a call from the fire department commander. They were not sure they're gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life and the smartest thing to do was pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.
Narrator: The term pull it is not a term used by the firefighting profession. By 5:20 PM, the building had been evacuated for hours, but when it was evacuated, the term evacuate would have been used. But not pull it. It may just be a coincidence that Silverstein is actually using a term commonly used by the building demolition profession.
Good afternoon. What's the company? I'm sorry, do I, Is this controlled demolitions? Yes, it is. OK. I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly, just ask a question I had. What kind of questions? Well, I just wanted to know what a term meant in a demolition terms. OK. Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the the term pull it, I was wondering what exactly that would mean.
Yeah hold on a minute. Thank you. Sir Yes Pull it is when they actually pull down. Oh well thank you very much for your time. OK, bye, bye.
Narrator: Silverstein also appeared to know that Building 7 would need replacing at least 17 months in advance of its collapse in 2001. In a recorded presentation given in Israel, he slipped up by revealing that the first design meeting for the reconstruction of Building 7 was actually in April. 2000
Silverstein: and so. Next thing you know. We got the designs of the building and the first design meeting was in April of 2000. and construction began. Shortly thereafter, in 2002.
Narrator: The expert you're about to hear from is Danny Jowenko. He was considered to be one of the best high-rise demolition experts in the world. Please note his natural reaction. He was not aware of Building 7 and his reaction to the footage is unprejudiced.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
The WTC7 video clips played for Jowenko have had the audio portion removed. The actual video includes background noise and voices while WTC7 is coming down.
The willful misrepresentation to Jowenko of WTC7 is neurolinguistic mind-rape in real time. His reputation and credibility were hijacked in order to deceive those who watch Calling Out Bravo7.
Watch these two versions of WTC7 coming down and ‘see’ how much is comprehension is lost by the treacherous removal of the audio. LOUD and visible explosions ALWAYS PRECEDE the coming down of a controlled demolition process. This is not to say that Barry Jennings did not hear explosions in WTC7 but those were 6 to 7 hours BEFORE WTC7 came down.
Attaching Jennings’ testimony as relevant to a controlled demolition of WTC7 is slanderous and deceitful.
COB7: Can you confirm it was number 7 that just went in. Yes sir. And you guys knew this was coming all day. We heard reports that the building was unstable and eventually it would come down on its own or it would be taken down
Can you confirm it was #7 that just went in? Yes, Sir. And you were, you guys knew this was coming all day. We had been had. We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually we need to come down on its own or it would be taken down
Narrator: As scientists, the staff at NIST would be told them well aware scientific investigation principle of Occam's Razor, a principle of economy. It encourages The Enquirer to avoid overcomplicating an investigation.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Without any explanation, a short animation clip shows a tall building (WTC7?) crumbling first at the bottom, then tilt, fall over intact and then break apart on impact.
What is the point of this clip?
It does not comport with the NIST faerie tale, not the UofA-Fairbanks/Leroy Hulsey cartoon and not what was seen of WTC7 when it came that afternoon.
This illustration runs counter to any successful controlled demolition and begs the question of the makers. Why is it in the movie?
What does it communicate? Huh?
This sequence of animated views (Is it a different simulation of WTC7 coming?) shows the building being blown out at the bottom and falling over. Watch it.
It is different than the NIST FEA model simulation.
It is different than the purple/maroon cartoon presented by Leroy Hulsey.
It stands against everything in the AE911T controlled demolition argument.
What is it doing in this movie at all? What is the point of including it?
COB7: To look for the most logical answer to a problem based upon accepted and tested laws of nature and science. In other words, a simple hypothesis is generally better than a complex one. Hypothesis should not be multiplied without necessity, and in other words, the simplest explanation is always to be preferred unless further evidence forces it's abandonment. An honest investigation should always start by looking at the observed event or data. Then follow the evidence wherever it leads.
So why did NIST, ignore the scientifically accepted principle of Occam's razor and the obvious observation of the buildings freefall begin their investigation which such a complex and unprecedented hypothesis involving fire. Their proposal read the challenge to determine if a fire induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire.
NIST: The problem at the very right is column 79, and that's the column that first buckles causing the floors to come down, followed by quick succession of failures of adjoining columns.
Narrator: These pictures were taken in 1985 during the early stages of Building 7 construction. As can be seen, the steel framework was designed not to fail. In addition to its extremely robust and substantial composition, this heavy steel framework as well as being laterally supported by poured reinforced concrete floors with thousands of sheer studs holding beams and flooring assemblies. Solidly in place.
Was also spray foam and gypsum board fire protected. Not only was this buildings engineering extremely robust, but the amount and thickness of steel involved also had enormous capacity for thermal conduction and dissipation of heat, meaning that it would require very substantial heating in any single location for a large local increase in thermal stress. Normal traveling fires fueled by no more than normal office furniture, as described in the observed fire section of this film, will not have much, if any effect upon fire protected steel framing of this standard.
NIST: Here is our structural Model showing the building collapsing, which matches quite quite well with the video of the event.
Narrator: Notice to the left of the entire bolted and welded steel framework of the interior just cascades as if it's unconnected like Jenga.
Kamal Obeid: It is possible that you could have a local failure as a result of the connection failures, but the likelihood of that failure dragging the entire building in such a fashion that all the columns would fail at the same time is an impossibility. Impossibility
Narrator: The complex and expensive NIST Computerized theory and animated model. Collapse clearly conflicts with into reality. It ended very prematurely in the collapse sequence. It does not explain all reflect the buildings freefall and as Richard Feynman explains, it does not matter what your name is, how many titles you possess, or how much money you spend if your theory disagrees with the observed events it's wrong.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
NIST is flat WRONG. Criminally Wrong. The Controlled Demotion Theory is equally wrong. Neither explanation lines up with the observed evidence.
· There was no projectile debris damage at the USPS building immediately across the street. Full wrap ballistic curtains are always used to prevent such damage, injuries and death.
· The lack of explosive sounds immediately before WTC7 came down (not six hours before as reported by Jennings) disqualifies Controlled Demolition as a valid explanation.
· The lack of a 12-18% debris pile height consistent with its 610’ height disqualifies Controlled Demolition as a valid explanation.
· The lack of a explanation for the 8 floors of building material that were gone as WTC7 fell at freefall speeds disqualifies Controlled Demolition as a valid explanation.
· Any of the above facts forces the abandonment of Controlled Demolition as a valid explanation in adherence to Occam’s Razor.
9/11 Revisionist responds:
Building 7 didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.
Truth seekers have been bamboozled by the "trusted experts" for nearly 2 decades. Article
COB7: Richard Feynman: OK, now that's the present situation. Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess. Don’t laugh. That's not really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess.
To see what if this is right, if this law that we get this right, we see what it would imply and then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compared to experimental or experience. Compare it directly with observation to see if it if it worked. If it disagrees with the experiment. It's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It's something that is different. How beautiful you get this. It doesn't make you think about smart. You are who made the guess or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment. It is wrong and that is all there is to it.
Narrator: Even to this day, NIST refuses to release its data for scientific peer review. The guardedness may be related to the fact that an organization backed by thousands of architects and engineers (AE911Truth) has clearly identified that rather than following the evidence and data in the manner of true science, in addition to ignoring the importance of freefall NIST has distorted and omitted many technical factors which completely undermine their theory.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Under the words “Expose 9/11 Myths” you will read “The Destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Skyscrapers”.
Gage, Erik Lawyer, the contributors and producers of this movie are unwilling or unable to sequentially count from 1 through 7.
They should all lose their degrees and professional licenses as a consequence.
WTC5 was acknowledged earlier in the movie in consideration of available water resources for fighting WTC7 fires. WTC5 not being mentioned by Gage, AE911T, the makers of this movie and former Congressman Curt Weldon is DISINFORMATION BULLSHIT.
COB7: Distortions which include temperature simulations and fire durations, the degree of thermal expansion of the beams blamed for the collapse initiation. Correct dimensions of a critical girder seat width. Omissions such as the presence of girder web stiffness and lateral support beams, girders side plates, which would preclude the key lateral displacement of the alleged failing column. 79 and the existence of thousands of sheer studs fixing beams to floor assemblies.
NIST cited the existence of sheer studs in other buildings involved in more aggressive fires as the reason for their resilience. In 2008, their report stated that had the shear studs had been included in the construction, the structural failure would not have occurred.
Reporter: NIST sent on to say in that report in 2008 … was that the reason that column was able to be pushed off of seating was because they said the column was unrestrained. And yet it was discovered last year, in 2012, after a Freedom of Information Act request was granted, that that NIST claim was not true. The columns were restrained. In fact, there were 3896 shear studs holding those columns in place.
My name is Leroy Hulsey. I'm a forensic engineer and a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Hulsey is a LIAR. He claims to be a forensic engineer. He should be prosecuted for criminal fraud or institutionalized for mental incompetence.
One literally has to step over WTC6 to get from WTC1 to WTC7.
For him not to comment about the scooped out damage at WTC6 is inexplicable other than intentional.
COB7: Steel is a very fire resistant material. When a structure fails, my job is to figure out why. Over the next year, with a team of PhD students, I will be rebuilding World Trade Center Building 7. How does floor 13 respond with respect to 12? Using the same drawings that were used to build it originally, we will reconstruct it virtually. Our goal is to figure out why it collapsed late in the afternoon on September 11th 2001 even though it was not hit by an airplane the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded …
NIST: What we found was the uncontrolled fires caused the extraordinary event the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fire.
Hulsey: Our investigation will evaluate the probability that this was the cause of the collapse. We are making this study open and transparent whether you are a physicist engineer architect fire expert or specialist in another field or just an ordinary citizen we want your participation. We are making all of our data available online.
Every aspect of our process regarding the model will be shared and we will be giving regular updates from the lab as we continue our work. Join us in getting the bottom of why World Trade Center 7 collapsed on September 11th 2001.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
WHY (the destructive mechanism that caused the WHAT) is not the same as WHAT (the description of the event). They are related but not the same.
COB7: Ben Swann: Well now today were going to release the results of a $300,000 study conducted by scientists of the university of Alaska. Those phd’s have used computer technology to prove that the way NIST says that WTC 7 came down was not only wrong it’s impossible. Furthermore, they can now say with absolute certainty that the building could only have come down and that is for the entire core of support beams to fail at the same time.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Ben Swann is either a dumbass or a co-conspirator with Gage, AE911, Calling Out Bravo7 and etcetera. Seven (7) buildings with a WTC prefix not 3 buildings, plus the Bankers Trust building and St Nicholas Greek Orthodox church were destroyed on 09 11 2001. Failing to mention all 7 plus 2 is abject FAILURE.
COB7: It was six years ago that I traveled to New York City just before 911 to report on claims that were being made by the group. Architects and engineers for 911 Truth. That claim was on 9/11, the third building that came down that day could only have been taken out through a total failure of support columns. That's what they were saying. Now we would know this as something called a controlled demolition. Take a look.
AE911T Person: At a controlled demolition when you have a core and the exterior. We can take the core out it pulls in the exterior and it comes down.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Where were the exterior columns in the debris stack? The debris stack was not outside of the building footprint. The debris stack had no evidence of the 58 perimeter columns, each 610 feet long, 35,380’ in total.
COB7: Ben Swann: What happens if if you leave half of them.
So if, if, if it's not a controlled demolition, if you just have a failure of half the columns you have a partial collapse. Again, that was six years ago. And yet now, on the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a new study has just been published. One that took hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years to complete. The groundbreaking Building 7 study.
A structural reevaluation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was conducted by Doctor Leroy Hulsey, a PhD, as well as two other researchers at the University of Alaska. It is a finite element analysis that uses computer modeling based on the original blueprints 4 World Trade Center 7 to determine what could and what could not have caused the collapse. The study examines NIST conclusions and finds them to be untenable.
Leroy Hulsey: Did building 7 collapse from fires? And the answer is no. UAF finding shows that the girder bearing at column 79 moved less than two inches. It would not have been a problem. It did not have a problem that lateral buckling not using their (NIST) fires.
Ben Swann: The executive summary of the UAF study finds that quote fires could not have caused weakening or displacement of structural members capable of initiating any of the hypothetical local failures alleged to have triggered the total collapse of the building. Nor could any local failures, even if they had occurred, have triggered a sequence of failures that would have resulted in the observed total collapse. Well, this leads Doctor Hulsey and his colleagues to this quote.
It is our conclusion, based upon these findings that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving this sequential failure of columns throughout the building. That failure of columns would mean that nearly all of the columns in the base of the building would have to have been taken out simultaneously.
Remember, this is a building that on 9/11 it was never, never hit by a plane. It simply collapsed. What's more, Doctor Hulsey's conclusion does match a theory that has long been promoted by so-called 9/11 truthers, that explosives were actually used to bring down building seven.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Hulsey does not say what caused (the destructive mechanism) the simultaneous failure of columns at WTC7. Swann makes a gross conclusion based on ZERO facts in evidence.
Swann is not an explosives expert, engineer, chemist or scientist.
He is regurgitating propaganda fed into his head by the likes of Gage and AE911T.
His comments are naked conjecture. As pointed out herein, the visible, audible and engineering evidence of what happened to WTC7 does not line up with controlled demolition.
For UoA-Fairbanks to simply, solely confirm freefall happened is not an explanation for how freefall happened.
Hulsey has exposed the University of Alaska-Fairbanks to criminal fraud.
COB7: Here's the UAF collapse simulation. Velocity is of red. And Actual Building Collapse Velocity by David Chandler took the video and monitored aspects of it in time and plotted it. He was a physicist and 2 1/2 / 2 1/2 second period and you can see it's a it's freefall. That's what that building did. And our red simulation points are very much on top of that, just to kind of give you an idea.
It is a stick frame, skeletal representation of the vertical and horizontal columns. It is NOT a realistic, full representation of the finished building with interior non-load bearing walls and other contents, which is requisite.
Hulsey knows this. He is incompetent or fraudulent.
The animation only goes through a partial cycle, about half the height, then loops back to full height. It never cycles fully to the ground. Why not?
If run through a complete cycle, a debris stack of beams much taller than the 20+ seen on 9/11 would have been revealed and invalidated the explanatory value applied to this simulation.
This is willful misrepresentation and fraud.
This image is a skeleton of columns and floors with nothing else. No windows, interior plumbing, HVAC, office equipment, cubicle furniture and etcetera are included. These must be included for the simulation to accurately illustrate reality. From this image alone, this simulation was more animation, fundamentally flawed and fraudulent. It looks like a cheap cartoon.
COB7: Narrator: Alaska University’s Forensic examination has provided additional recognition of the validity of the original measurement of Building 7's freefall by David Chandler. We now have recognition of the freefall of Building 7 from the original and independent measurement of David Chandler, a reluctant and veiled recognition by NIST and from the engineering department of Alaska Fairbanks University.
9/11 Revisionist Responds:
Alaska University’s Forensic examination conveniently IGNORED a major anomaly with Building 7 - Why? Because it doesn’t fit the the narrative for their $316 000 payday, financed by over trusting truth seekers, donating to architects for an engineered truth.
9/11 Revisionist responds further;
After nearly two decades of lecturing on Building 7, David Chandler also conveniently does not understand the anomalous seismic evidence, when I asked him about it in 2023, he gets noticibly flustered; He thus shows how disingenuous he is and in this clip, you’ll see how he discredits his 9/11 activism in under 90 seconds. (clip 5 minutes)
9/11 Revisionist responds further;
In March of 2025, during a presentation for Boston 9/11 “truth” Daniel Noël presented "Conspiracy Theorists" and "Shepherds", trying to make the case for a fire induced collapse. Also noteworthy in the description was the fact that he led Orange County (CA) 9/11 truth, led a team for AE911truth, and is currently volunteering with Richard Gage.
Now, why is a Building 7 “normie” and a 9/11 “conspiracy theorist” working together?
Is it to make sure people do not look at the anomalous seismic readings? Listen to this 10 minute interaction where I challenged Daniel Noël on the seismic evidence and you tell me what you think about Daniel Noël’s answer and Richard Gage’s obfuscation.
The 9/11 Building 7 HOAX - Building 7 did NOT go down to fire or explosives. Article
COB7: Of the hundreds of thousands of words devoted to the voluminous reports on 9/11, NIST only published a couple of lines of text regarding 7 freefall recorded as discreetly as possible. NIST’s recognition of the freefall of 7 can be found in the third paragraph from the bottom of page 45 of the final report here, NIST acknowledges that The North Face descended at gravitational acceleration and in order for this to occur, the buckled columns must have provided negligible support, clearly stating that this freefall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32 meters, 105 feet requiring 0 resistance from all 81 columns at the same time throughout 8 stories. The freefall is also illustrated by the red line through the graphing, Figure 3-15.
The red line through the data has a slope of 32.196 feet per second squared, which is 9.81 meters per second squared in metric units, which is of course gravitational acceleration. NIST continues to be deceptive by claiming these findings are consistent with a simulation which is clearly untrue. The Alaska university report confirms in detail that the NIST computer model needed to make many unjustified and some might say fraudulent Right. So the actual structure in order to get their model to collapse, and as Ben Swan just explained, the only way Alaska University could get a collapse that resembles the actual collapse was to remove all vertical supports over 8 floors, something which fire obviously cannot.
To muddy the waters and confuse the lay reader, missed added their stage 1 reading which after examination and research is found to be a non-downward movement, a lateral movement of a kink forming in the middle of The North Face roof line, only visible and measurable via this deliberate selection of a low camera angle, which introduced a significant parallax measurement error fraudulently buying their analysis extra time. In more detailed description of this can be viewed by searching for David Chandler 911 Anniversary Physics talk which will be shared on the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth website.
Niels Harrit: We're talking about the laws, fundamental laws of physics we're talking about. So I think Newton's laws of motion. And according to these, this is impossible unless you have applied some force to make the building fall. Gravity cannot do that because when the building is in freefall, all the energy of the building is going into accelerating the building down. There is no energy left for breaking thousands of steel beams. Regardless, this is completely basic physics.
There is no way building seven could be brought down without application of explosives unless you are ready to violate so I think Newton’s laws of motion and this hasn't happened since 1687. Yet so if you if you claim the official story, you're talking about miracles because the miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. And I don't believe that.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Newton’s Laws of Motion were not violated. The visual appearance of 7 coming down is deceptively similar to controlled demolition but considerable evidence proves it was something other than CD. Explosive destruction of WTC7 begs many questions, none of which involve Newton’s Laws of Motion as an explanatory tool.
· How was the building rigged with explosives?
· When was the building gutted and explosives applied?
· Where was the visible or audible evidence of explosives being used when 7 came down?
· How was the mass of the alleged 8 floors made to go away and allow the rest of the building material to fall through at free fall acceleration?
· Where did that missing mass end up?
Arguing in favor of controlled demolition for WTC7 is bullshit.
COB7: I've joined the fire service in November 2000 and I'm currently employed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in Edinburgh.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
What in the world does this Scotsman have to do with 9/11 fire issues in NYC?
What particular expertise does he have that is not available in the US?
Apparently, this movie could not get ANY NYFD personnel to go on record.
What are they afraid of? Which raises the question, “Why is the primary narrator not from the US; who is he?”
His accent is English and garbled, which made the auto-transcript regularly inaccurate.
COB7: I've been aware of the problems with the official story for 911 since approximately it was 2010. For a period of time I was in a state of shock that we have not been told the truth about that event. I was surprised that I hadn't seen Building 7 before. It's not something that's been publicized and not many people that know about it. If you want to know about Building 7, you'll be more or less have to go on the Internet and research it for yourself.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
So this guy was 9 years late to the anomalies of WTC7 and now his opinion carries some explanatory weight?
COB7: My name is Michelle Weiss, little sister of fallen hero FDNY firefighter David Martin Weiss.
Hey, I am born firefighters, ever since I was a kid, you know, I knew what I wanted to go to.
David was a firefighter, and firefighters risked their lives every day for their brothers and sisters, for you, and for any of your family members. My brother would have gone into that building no matter who was in there, no matter who is responsible. He faced his fear and he did his duty. As a country we promised we would never forget. They gave their life. At the very least, we can give our time to demand a real investigation.
Erik Lawyer: Thank you everybody for coming and we really appreciate the courage you have to show up in the openness you have to listen to what we have to say tonight. And I'm just going to start by telling a little bit about my story and how I came to change my views on this completely. Right after 911, I tried everything I could to get out to Ground Zero. I was on a team that we thought they were gonna call up, but they didn't, and they ended up calling up the usar team instead.
Anyways, I went out there for the funerals. I helped support however I could. This was there about a month and 1/2 after Ground Zero. And so I was very emotionally attached to it. When anyone would talk about it, I couldn't listen. I just didn't want to hear it. I don't want to consider it. And my Lieutenant for years had told me that it looked like, you know something didn't add up and I just told him he was crazy, he should leave the country. I was very patriotic and I I just thought if you believe that anyone could be responsible for this, you shouldn't be here.
It was a friend of mine from the military that actually opened my eyes to something else. And one thing led to another and I kept looking at 911, kept coming up. And because it wasn't being shoved down my throat, I decided to look into it a little bit more. And when I did, I knew there was a lot of conspiracy theories out there and a lot of crazy conspiracy theories, and I decided to do my own research. And so I went to the Zacharias Masawi exhibit trials. This is the US government's evidence on 9/11, basically. And I wanted to see what they had. I was kind of shocked. I wanted to know how did they identify the terrorists so quickly? You know, how were they so sure? And so as a I started looking. This is what I found and this is the main evidence that they had. This was found after the plane crash. This was found the next day.
So you can see they found bandanas, papers, more passports. You can see these passports. They're pretty well intact. I've been to a lot of fires and it's in and out in a room and that's not on fire. We'll find this kind of stuff. But the thing that stuck out to me and someone else that pointed out. But wait a second, those passports, those ID's, they were inside either pockets or luggage or inside that plane. Then that plane hit those towers or went into the field or went into the Pentagon, and then they blew up. There are big fireballs we all saw, and then they were found actually on top of the pile. So that stuff started not adding up for me.
I was like, well, wait a second, how they find it The next day, it should have been either on the ground or burned up. Were buried in the rubble that led to Colonel Nelson. But once I started looking into this, I read his article and he's a 34 year air force crash investigator and he'd written a pretty amazing article and he talks about his own experience into 911. And once I spoke with him, I asked him, I said when did you first notice something was wrong? He said for me it was the first day. And I said really? And he said yeah. And I said well Stuck out to you as well.
I've been to a lot of crash sites. I know how they work and he said was the Pentagon and he said when I looked at the Pentagon and here's some pictures of it, He said what I saw the first day was people picking up debris and they were removing as quickly as possible. He said every crash I've ever been to, it's the MP's job to secure that area, flag it, tag and take pictures. Nobody touches anything until after the. Investigators were there while they were cleaning it up before any investigation. He said by day three he knew something was wrong and by day three is when he said they identified the terrorists. And with the ID's, he said there's no way he said find those 19 terrorists. He would have taken weeks to months to find that kind of evidence to sort through it, to go through and he said it recreate the aircraft crash. It was impossible.
9/11 was the greatest loss of life and property damage in US fire history.
This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested and thorough investigation of a crime scene in world history. Sadly it was not. What was it?
Well we know from their own admission the majority of the evidence was destroyed. I, like Richard (Gage?) said, 22 years of experience. I have seen a lot of crime scenes. I've never seen anything like this in my life. And I was, I was out at the site, I saw trucks leaving faster than, you know, anywhere I've ever seen. But I accepted it at the time and for years I accepted it because it was a recovery and rescue operation and that's normal to have something like that going again. We've never seen anything like it, but that was expected. What I didn't know. For years, what was going on behind the scenes was that evidence was being destroyed when it was shipped off.
James Corbett: On the day of 9/11, while the remains of the twin Towers in World Trade Center Seven were still smoldering, one of Mayor Giuliani's first concerns was clearing away the evidence from the crime scene.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Why has the narrator been changed and why James Corbett?
COB7: Giuliani: We were able to move 120 dump trucks out of the city last night, which will give you a sense of the work that was done overnight.
It is wild out here. They just keep coming. Look. It doesn’t Stop. There is more, I think, keep thinking it's at the end and it's not.
James Corbett: Despite reassurances that the rapid removal of the evidence from Ground Zero was important for emergency access, this process went far beyond merely clearing a path for rescue workers. Eric Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, points out, the massive operation to haul away over 1.5 million tons of debris and to sell much of the steel to Chinese firm Bao Steel at discount prices was not just an overzealous approach to clearing the area, but was itself a crime. By their own admission, Tower 7 investigation, this investigation of Tower Seven had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you've destroyed all the evidence? It doesn't make sense. They also admit that they refuse to test the explosives or to test for explosives or or residue of thermite.
NIST: Did you do any explosive residue testing on any item out of the building just to lay these ideas to rest. The answer to that is no, we do not do it.
Erik Lawyer: Now. This is what I'm going to go into here just real quickly is there are national standards for an investigation. That's what all of us are asking for, an investigation that follows national standards and holds. People accountable, this manual right here, just so you can see it is what we called it, the kind of the fire investigation 101. This is the most basic fire investigation manual there. This is for the 2001 edition. This is what should have been referred to at least it doesn't have to be followed exactly, but it should have been used as a guideline for the investigation. I'm just going to cover a few of the things that are in here. So NIST violated and the initial investigators that did not protect the scene violated the most basic of the guidelines and I'm going to cover five of them here.
1 is the the NFPA 9.3.6. It covers spoilation of evidence. What specifically what it reads is once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not Destroyed or altered until the investigation is complete. The steel was melted down prior to the investigation. We know that from their own admission. This is no conspiracy theory stuff.
19 point 2.4 exotic accelerants. If if on the scene you find melted steel or concrete you should consider the use of exotic accelerants. And they specifically say In the manual, thermite mixtures produce exceedingly hot fires that can account for melted steel and concrete. That also says they leave residues that will can be tested for visually and chemically identifiable.
FEMA describes samples of steel that had been thinned to razor sharpness. In some cases, there were inexplicable holes in the steel. The fire engineering professors have found the samples cannot come up with an explanation for it. Also could not explain the sulfidation of the steel. That is, steel had been chemically changed at the microstructural level in ways that indicated a chemical eutectic mixture had been achieved between sulphur, iron and oxygen, causing steel to melt.
And again, they did not test for it and just put in perspective on a routine house fire. We suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant. We're going to test for it when there's no fatalities, when there's very little property damage. So do not do it on this. There is absolutely no excuse. I can't drive that point home enough.
18.15 is analyzed. Fuel source. All available fuel. Fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until 1 fuel can be identified. Nice. Meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if you find, if you find pulverized concrete, which we all know there was all three buildings,
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
All seven WTC buildings were destroyed and not just 1, 2 and 7.
Apparently Erik Lawyer has a mental defect or is unable to count consecutively from 1 through 7.
COB7: there was pulverized concrete and that only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered. So they shouldn't be considering fires. They shouldn't be doing that. It doesn't account for pulverized concrete. They should only be. Considering exotic accelerants and explosives
19 point 4.8 point 2.6 extremism, the terrorist may include fires but one of a variety of weapons along with explosives used in furthering his or her goal. We know they used them in 93, why would we not test for him now? There was reports that day, multiple reports which I'll get into in a second.
So they could have put them in the basement. How do we know that unless we test for it? I mean, even if it is the terrorist that they claim they are, we need to test this.
NIST: We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations of BLAST scenarios. This size blast would have produced an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Likewise, if controlled demolition had been used, the blasts would have been audible and visible. Nope.
If thermite had been used the slow burning, hissing and fizzing explosions common to that incendiary would have been audible and visible. Nope.
What is the time of this video clip?
Apparently well before WTC7 came down as all firefighters were pulled from any fire fighting actions hours before it came down.
The clear implication of this being proof of Controlled Demolition is conscious deception and mind control.
9/11 Revisionist responds: Was every BOOM on 9/11 a bomb? Not everything that goes boom is a bomb. Article
COB7: Do you wanna call your mother or something? Got to get back, got get thank you. Keep your eye on that building.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
This clip is of the NYFD near WTC7 on 9/11, right?
COB7: We made it at least two blocks and we started running. Floor by Floor it started popping out. It was not. I was as if de they were plan to take down a building boom boom boom boom boom boom.
Clip of NYFD in a fire station days after 9/11 discussing WTC1 and WTC2.
Why the shift in focus? Why move to 1 and 2? What does these comments have to do with 7? This is an unstated morphing of the consideration of 7 with 1 and 2.
There was no visible floor popping out on 7. This visible difference is key or should be for any honest consideration of what really happened.
COB7: What happened? We was in an explosion.
We was in the lobby and the fucking … this, the third explosion, the whole lobby collapsed on us. What was it like? What was it like? Horrible. You don’t want to know. The whole building just collapsed on us. Inside the lobby.
Was that a secondary explosion, yes, it was that was difficult, definitely secondary explosion. we was inside waiting to go upstairs, and on the way upstairs, the whole fucking thing blew and we just just collapsing everybody inside the lobby. Was it similar to the first tower coming down second. I don’t know about the first one but I know the second one. It was terrible. It was the third one too, after yes right everybody was inside the building waiting to go upstairs and they just they just let loose inside the building just let loose.
So what you tell me there was plane or whatever hit the building then the secondary explosions. There was like three explosions after that we came in after the after the fire. We came in when the fire was going on already. We was in the staging area inside the building.
Erik Lawyer: 14.3 preservation of the fire scene and physical evidence we find the following the cause of the fire explosion is not known until the near the end of the Investigation. The entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved. It's just over and over.
There's so many you can go to our website. The firefighter trial and the truth. We have many more of these actual chapters that cover what they should have done that they did not do so now by their own admission in all three building collapses NIST refused to test for. Physically test like Doctor Stephen Jones did for explosives.
This, this is just unbelievable. And here are their excuses and I quote. It is unlikely that 100 lbs of thermite or more could have been carried into World Trade Center 7 and placed around columns without being detected either prior to September 11th or during that day. So again, I've been on a lot of fire scenes and I have a lot of seen a lot of investigations and why would we not test? Because something's hard to do.
That's the exact reason you need to investigate. If that was hard to do, we need to find out how they did it. And #2 NIST excuse. In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of the video recordings during the collapse of World Trade Center 7 or reported by witnesses. That's one of the excuses why they didn't test. Well, apparently they didn't reach out to 1818 is the general definition of explosions.
Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not in big bold letters and essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases of the primary criteria of an explosion.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
No audible sounds of explosions were heard IMMEDIATELY BEFORE WTC7 came down. No generation of violent escape of gases were seen or heard IMMEDIATELY BEFORE WTC7 came down.
Conclusion => no explosives were used at WTC7 and thus no controlled demolition.
COB7: So that alone says they should have tested for it, but then we also they they've NIST has lied and we can prove it. And as soon as the new investigation happens, you're gonna, the evidence is out there for you to see. Right now, we have 118 first responders who reported explosions. We had the radio transmissions from FDNY members that are still recorded today that reported explosions. We have audio recordings. We have video recordings.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
WHEN? What are the time stamps of these explosions?
COB7: I've personally talked to witnesses that heard them. So there's nothing. Sort of saying they lied and we need would they need to be held accountable. And besides that, the well, like I said, there is no excuse for not testing for explosives. And so at the very least, at the very best, even if you want to believe the official story, this was the most incompetent investigation of all time. And I've talked to a lot of investigators that were there and I asked them. Specific question, why did they refuse to test?
They weren't the ones refused but NIST it and they said all we can say, you know, all they can answer is incompetence or they tell me to shut up. They cannot give me any any reason that follows national standards. So but the reality after you know, all the research everybody here and the incredible people were in the room with today have done there. The reality is it was a Criminal investigation to cover up the crime.
So I'd like just to finish. I'd like to read a quote This is from a retired decorated FDNY Lieutenant. Anyone who knows the fire service he he is a stud. He worked on a ladder company 26 Rescue company 3 Rescue company one in his career. Anyone knows those are amazing companies.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
What is his name? Is he too afraid to speak openly about it? so you had to get some Scotsman to make a public statement?!
COB7: Here's his comment. Trade Tower 7 by itself is the smoking gun not hit by an aircraft with only a few relatively small. Fires that came down in the classic crimp and implosion, something only very precise demolitions can accomplish what's takes days if not weeks to prepare.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
There was NO EVIDENCE of weeks of controlled demolition preparation at WTC7. How then do you explain WTC7 coming down? No preparation. No removal of all contents. No audible explosions. No visible explosions. No ejections of gas from explosions immediately before 7 came down?!
ALL of which invalidates controlled demolition as an explanation.
The retired NYFD Lieutenant is an unthinking dumbass and no stud.
COB7: The 9/11 Commission didn't even mention it in FEMA actually stated they didn't know why it collapsed and left it that. Brothers, I know what the implications are. I know that the above implications are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense and 343 our murder brothers are crying out for justice. Thank you.
James Corbett: Needless to say, an investigation of the 9/11 crime scene following the National Investigation Standards has never been conducted and never will be. As Giuliani oversaw the illegal destruction of the evidence itself. In the late 1990's, the Mayor oversaw the creation of a state-of-the-art $13 million Emergency Command Center to coordinate the city's disaster recovery and response efforts. Located on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7, just across Vessey Street from the Twin Towers, the center, dubbed by local press at the time as Giuliani's Bunker, included reinforced, bulletproof and bomb resistant walls, its own air supply and water. Beds, showers to accommodate 30 people and three backup generators, It could be used to monitor all of New York's emergency communications frequencies and with staffed 24 hours a day.
And yet, remarkably, on the morning of 9/11, neither Mayor Giuliani nor any other city Personnel or police or fire department officials were in the bunker after the Twin Tower strikes. So why wasn't the mayor and the city's emergency personnel in the location that had been purpose built for just such an event?
According to Giuliani, they have been told to evacuate because they had been Given a warning that the twin towers were going to collapse, a warning that was evidently not passed on to any of the emergency personnel that were still working in the buildings.
Who told Giuliani? Based on what information?
Giuliani, in his own words, has admitted that he was warned that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. This despite the fact that there was no possible way for this to be predicted in the first hour of the unfolding disaster. Even more incredibly, despite being given this warning, no effort was made to pass it on to the Police, firefighters and other responders who were still working in and around the buildings. It is no wonder, then, that the Fire Department of New York so passionately detest Giuliani for his actions in disgracing their fallen brothers and covering up the 9/11 crime.
Harold Schaitberger: Rudy Giuliani has used the horrible events of September 11th, 2001 to create a carefully crafted persona. But the fact is, what Rudy portrays is not a full picture of the decisions made that led, in our view, to the unnecessary deaths of our FDNY members and the attempt to stop the dignified recovery of those lost.
Reporting here from Times Square, I am standing next to Rudy Dent. He's a 32 year veteran of. The New York City Fire Department, he's worked as well with the New York City Police Department, and he retired right after 911. He was there on 9/11. He saw World Trade Center Tower 7 come down. Rudy, tell us about what happened that day. Well, I was off that day and I got a I received a call at home and I got to see.
Buildings come down on TV. I jumped on my motorcycle. I did about 120 miles an hour across the Tappan Zee. I reported to my Firehouse and then I got my gear up. A bunch of us got together, we commandeered a mail truck and we made our way down to the to the site. At that time, World Building 7 was still up. I saw Building 7 come down. My fellow firefighters who were there, they did that involuntary jerk when a loud explosion goes off, you know you, you can't help it. And they, they, I'm a Vietnam veteran, too. Ohh I kinda didn't jump like they did but uh. It was, there was an explosion.
The building did come down in complete classical controlled demolition. It came down on its own footprint. There's no question. And then talk to me a little bit. Obviously as a professional in the fire department for 30 plus years, they're saying that blaming it on a few office fires. Well, if it wasn't so serious a situation, that would be completely laughable. That is ridiculous. First of all, our guys were up there. They were calling for additional hand lines to mop up the isolated pockets of fire. And let me just explain one thing.
Never in the history of the world, never in the history of high rise skyscrapers, has ever a skyscraper ever come down because of fire. And I'm talking massive fire. And you know the reason why? Because fire does not burn by itself hot enough to compromise and melt steel when you see molten steel. Steel running down the channels. Like you're in a foundry. Wow.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Okay, how did this steel become molten?
There wasn’t a blast furnace on the site to melt it. Did these firefighters see molten steel, or was it liquid steel that was created by some other means than high heat concentration?
Molten steel, caused by heat, would quickly resolidify and not flow like lava.
9/11 Revisionist responds: The “molten metal” PSYOP. (12 minutes)
COB7: What we had in the World Trade Center, and I saw myself was molten lava, like pockets of molten steel. Alright. I spent the night on the piles searching for bodies, and I saw that with my own eyes. So who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe a bunch of government bureaucrats or my fellow brothers, which I lost 343 guys that day and I lost Tommy O'hagan, Bruce Van Heinz and Kenny Kunkle, and I can never forget that. I think of that before I go to bed. I think about it first thing in the morning when I wake up. In honor of them and their family, that I will continue to do everything I can to make the rest of the world wake up to the fact that this was a false flag operation.
Dale Pierce: They call you conspiracy theorist and instead of talking about the technical, they wanna know The Who, the whys and the what’s. In other words, that they want to engage in conspiracy theories. World Trade Center 7, I have no idea how they could do something like that, but it's obvious through the evidence we have that it was brought down in controlled demolition. So that is the job for policemen and investigators. That's their job, and they are failing at this point to accomplish that
Christopher Gioia: On the morning of. September 11th, 2001 I was working on the Brooklyn side of the East River, just north of the Williamsburg Bridge. Having been an eyewitness to the attacks that day, and from being called to duty to assist the Fire Department of New York and the following days and weeks afterwards, 9/11 has never been far from my thoughts, having been burned forever into my soul.
The 9/11 Commission concluded that Osama bin Laden and a group of Islamic extremists were responsible and carried out the attacks, and that was to be the end of it. Truth be told, that is far from the end of it. The 9/11 Commission was flawed and in the words of two of its own, the Chairman and the Vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission Respectively, Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, who stated in their book Without Precedent that they were set up to fail and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. That's their own words.
They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Authority, and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.
The final report did not examine key evidence and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners themselves admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21st, 2004. What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important, but equally important is the way the 9/11 cover up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government.
Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty and trust and confidence in the American political system. That is why on July 24th of this year, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District voted unanimously to adopt A legal resolution of support for the special federal grand jury investigation before the US Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York. The almost 3000 innocent people who were murdered right before our eyes that day cannot speak, so it is left up to us to speak for them and demand that their voices be heard. And a court of law with subpoena power and impartial jury to consider all of the evidence by placing 9/11 under a microscope and investigating everything and anything down to the smallest of details.
I demand to know, as should everyone, especially the media, why important testimony from made that day from over 150 police, firefighters and 1st responders regarding explosions wasn't included in the Commission report. Nor investigated further. Why didn't the, FBI or NIST examine the wreckage for explosives? Why wasn't Ground Zero considered a crime scene and sealed off and processed accordingly? Why was crucial evidence of melted structural steel suppressed and not even considered, or worse yet, allowed to be carted off and destroyed?
Why won't, after 18 years, mainstream media such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or Fox News and a Fox News here, I, I take that back and I apologize. Hey court on any of this, let alone ask the hard questions of how and why certain things occurred the way they did, especially in the collapse of the Third World World Trade Center building building #7 that most people don't even know about.
And finally. Why can't Americans hear about FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, who succeeded in making it to the point of impact on the 78th floor of the South Tower with his men and reported that he had two isolated pockets of fire? And that we should be able to knock it down with two lines. So he made it up to the fire floor and he saw what was going on and, and contradiction and contradicting the, the official storyline that it was a raging fire up there.
He's, he's a brave fireman who made it onto the fire floor and was doing its job. One minute after the final transmission, the South tower collapsed.
This is battalion 7 on floor 40 of Tower 2. We got one elevator working up the 40th floor. Staffed by a number of …
As chief of Battalion 7, Palmer was amongst the first to arrive at the scene. As he entered the South tower, he single handedly fixed an elevator and took it to the 40th floor, halfway to where almost 700 people were struggling to stay alive.
And then he started to climb on foot and because he was an very, very fit man, he was able to make tremendous progress. He had run marathons, he ran half marathons.
“We’re on the 43rd floor, stairway B at”
“What floor should we try to get up to Orio? I am up to 55?”
He went 12 floors in 10 minutes wearing all the bunker gear or 50 or 60 lbs.
“Orio Palmer floor 69: We’re going to have to hoof it. I am on 69 now but we need a higher bank.
B stairway walls have been compromised on 73 and 74. The wall are breached so be careful. 10-4 six more to go.”
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
As stated at the beginning, firemen will not take suicidal risks in doing their work.
Orio Palmer was observant of his surroundings and the physical condition of the building as he went up. The extensive preparation (such as cleared out floors, miles of wiring and detonator cord everywhere and explosives wrapped around exposed segments of the vertical columns) that a building ALWAYS undergoes BEFORE a controlled demolition would have been self-evident.
Seeing all this preparation work, he would have reported back and aborted his mission. Palmer did not.
Consequently, controlled demolition can be ruled out for the South Tower by Orio Palmer’s description/testimony as he ascended up from 40th floor .
COB7: During his ascent, Palmer discovered that one stairwell, the South, was still intact all the way to the impact zone and beyond. For the hundreds trapped there, this stairwell could have been an escape route.
“What stair are you in Orio? South Stairway. South Tower.”
“We got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with 2 lines. Radio that. 78th floor. Numerous 10-45 Code 1s (civilian fatalities). Floor 78. 10-4. Numerous civilians. We’re gonna need 2 engines up here. Alright 10-4 we are on our way.”
Debbie Palmer: When I heard the tapes, you were watching the screen with all the words on it, but with a digital countdown, so you knew exactly what was coming. You knew with the exact minute that the towers were going to go down. And you can't help but feel like you wanna jump out of your seat and say hurry up and get out of there. You know, you have one more minute before they it comes down. That's the hard part. That was the hard part. I was not surprised when I heard that Oreo had made it to the 78th floor. He made it up to the point of impact and it's amazing.
Christopher Gioia: Why can't Americans hear about that? It took a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act by The New York Times to get the fire department tapes released so that the public could hear exactly what the firefighters said. This occurring in August of 2005, almost exactly a year after 911 Commission had disbanded. So it would seem until now that we have left unmolested those who set fire to the house and prosecuted those who sounded the alarm, But that is changing. People lie, but the facts don't. All the American people want now, after 18 years, is the truth based on the facts. The bottom line here is that the American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning 18 years ago.
The way to get, to get the message out you need the fire department the fire department is gonna be important here because it's people can identify with first responders and so to have somebody from the fire department and it, it accomplishes a couple of things. Validates what architects and engineers and other groups have been saying all along, trying, trying to get new investigation because we support architects and engineers and we support the lawyers committee.
So to have the fire department get on board with that, that validates that. And that people could relate to that. So that that was very important. Being a Fire Commissioner and from a fire district in in New York. We're right on top of 911 and we've lost a couple of people. I've lost a couple of good friends. And I wanted to do something. About that. So finding myself in a unique position.
I brought it up with the other commissioners in Franklin Square and I wanted to do something and I wanted to pass a resolution. And I I knew it would be mostly symbolic because it's, it's really not anything other than a statement reaffirming our principles that we believe in the rule of law and we believe in what the Lawyers committee has done and submitting this petition to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and we wanted to get that message out there to to everyone that the fire department is coming out as part of this. But I believe what David is doing is the most critical thing that can be done and that is to get this into a court of law, to get that grand jury impaneled and and to start getting the evidence out there. That's that's the only recourse that we have. There's no other recourse here.
We have to because they're in a court of law It's, it's either this or that. There's no really no grey area. The law says it's, it's this way and that's the way it has to be done. So I believe in the rule of law.
Back to the original narrator with the English Accent: I put it to you that the failing we should be concerned with is not a theoretical failing in Building 7's design or construction, but a failing in our institutions and not just in the United States, but in Western civilized democracy, as this is indeed an international concern. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce.
During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, it was an agency of the Bush Cheney administration. In 2004 the American Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with, quote, distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends End Quote. By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.
When elements within the system of government start to veer off course or fail, the responsibility to identify, check and challenge those possible failings should first fall on to the respected shoulders of societies other leading institutions such as the criminal investigation bodies, the judiciary or academia.
These bodies unfortunately are currently failing in that responsibility. In a follow on documentary to supplement this film called Beyond Bravo7 we shall examine why this might be the case.
Jordan Peterson: Nature said that you could tell much about a man's character by how much truth he could tolerate. Sometimes it can really destroy you, you know an encounter with the truth.
Daniele Ganser: Now I can't solve this riddle for you, OK, It's either fire or controlled demolition, and you have to think for yourself. As historians, we observe that politicians, very powerful politicians, tell us not to ask these questions.
Professor Mark Milner: Propaganda works best when you don't see it for what it is.
Democracy could survive the greed of the ambitious and even the lies of fools, but it cannot survive the ignorance or deceit of its trusted institutions.
And we're also seeing in an extremely perilous situation, if 911 is what many of us fear it is, and we're in a situation where we really have lost control of our government, and unless we regain that, then the future potentially is extremely bleak for all of us.
Christopher Gioia: So it would seem until now that we have left unmolested those who set fire to the house. And prosecuted those who sounded the alarm. But that is changing. People lie, but the facts don't. All the American people want now, after 18 years, is the truth based on the facts.
Conspiracy Realist Responds:
Listening to Orio Palmer was a gripping, moving.
Courageous men like him, the 343 NYFD, the 3,000 murdered on 911, the DEW dis-integrated 1,100 still missing victims, the rest of the nation and the 4.5+ million innocent mostly brown people murdered after the 911 false flag deserve the truth … not the official narrative lies and not the BULLSHIT controlled opposition lies everywhere present in Calling Out Bravo7.
Thank you for reading, thank you for watching, listening and still caring.
If you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as substack does not allow for payments to my country yet.
If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.
Excellent analysis of yet more propaganda and disinformation. Having the actual footage of the WTC buildings turning into dust is crucial as is all the rest of the scientifically implausible so-called evidence. It's unfortunate we belong to a nation of the most brainwashed people ever to walk planet Earth.
Thank you so much for taking the (massive amounts of) time to write this all out. I heard about that Tucker interview, dutifully listened to it because I've been curious about this since 2004 or 2005. At that time, #3 on your list of why Americans don't know what 9/11 really was - that we can't handle the implications- was what stopped me from looking further. Now, 20 years of impoverishment and destroying everything the US once wss, has gotten me interested again. And that damn Tucker interview led me right down the "calling out bravo" documentary lane, so THANK YOU for being here to catch me before I went down another useless rabbit hole.
Excellent analysis of yet more propaganda and disinformation. Having the actual footage of the WTC buildings turning into dust is crucial as is all the rest of the scientifically implausible so-called evidence. It's unfortunate we belong to a nation of the most brainwashed people ever to walk planet Earth.
Thank you so much for taking the (massive amounts of) time to write this all out. I heard about that Tucker interview, dutifully listened to it because I've been curious about this since 2004 or 2005. At that time, #3 on your list of why Americans don't know what 9/11 really was - that we can't handle the implications- was what stopped me from looking further. Now, 20 years of impoverishment and destroying everything the US once wss, has gotten me interested again. And that damn Tucker interview led me right down the "calling out bravo" documentary lane, so THANK YOU for being here to catch me before I went down another useless rabbit hole.