|Are You New to the Evidence?|
|Written by AE911Truth Staff|
|Friday, 01 August 2014 02:57|
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Below is a summary of information that we feel you need to know regarding the events of September 11, 2001, in New York City.
AE911Truth has carefully studied the publicly available information on the destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. This evidence includes video and audio recordings, photographs, eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence.
As building and technical professionals, we research and comment on only this forensic and recorded evidence, which has led us to the inevitable conclusion that the three skyscrapers were willfully destroyed by controlled demolition using explosives and incendiaries. That is why we have concluded that the hypotheses for the buildings' destruction given in the official reports published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an arm of the U.S. government, are seriously flawed and scientifically impossible.
On this page you will find...
AE911Truth's - Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction (33-min. version)
These and other experts are featured in our latest documentary "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"
The one hour version of the film is below...
Physics - WTC7 Free-fall
'The North Tower Exploding'
An examination of the North Tower exploding
'Downward Acceleration of the North Tower'
David Chandler's exploration of the downward acceleration of WTC 1
WTC 7: NIST Finally Admits Free-fall (Part I)
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free-fall, but the cover-up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free-fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 cover-up.
See the rest of the videos in this series at the links below:
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
Jonathan Cole tackles the thermate debate. Can thermate actually cut steel or is National Geographic's 9/11 show correct?
118 Witnesses: Firefighters Testify to
Reminder: This YouTube video is not an AE911Truth video, and AE911Truth takes no position on who is responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks.
When a small team of independent researchers can discover major discrepancies and careless errors throughout what should have been the most critical and carefully reviewed part of the entire report, then what confidence should anyone have in the rest of that report, or NIST's other reports about what happened on 9/11?
Part One — Shear Ignorance
Part Two — The Expanding Lie
Part Three-- Tangled Webs
Part Four-- MaladmiNISTration
• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
• Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint
• Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
• Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
• Mysteries of the Twin Towers
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
• Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
• Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics: Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
• Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
• The Destruction of WTC 7
• The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
• Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
• DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
• Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
• Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
• Can Physics Rewrite History?
• The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
• Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
• Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
• Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
• Report on Weidlinger Simulation
• Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
• UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
• High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
• Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
• Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
• Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
• Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
• 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation Was Impossible
• Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
• Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel
• The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
• Response to “Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen
• How the Towers were Demolished
• How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel
"But Hasn't Popular Mechanics debunked this?"
One of the reasons we frequently hear for why people do not look further into the evidence of controlled demolition on 9/11 is because they have heard that the evidence has been "debunked" by Popular Mechanics. AE911Truth has developed a series of articles that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by Popular Mechanics in the latest edition of its book, Debunking 9/11 Myths.