THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THE TWIN TOWERS: WHAT DO THE WORLD'S FOREMOST ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT?

  

 Then ask yourselves this: How could the BBC, in this live report run a crawl across the screen that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed when it's still standing in the background?

Who was it that actually knew it was going to come down later? 

(BELOW) Keep this in mind also, only 5% of the American people know that THREE skyscrapers were brought down on 9/11! Most don't know that World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 AND World Trade Center 7, were all brought down that day by a controlled demolition!

OUR WEBSITE IS FREE AND ALWAYS WILL BE. IF YOU FIND OUR SITE USEFUL, PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE TO GIVE YOU THE BEST UPDATES:

THEY TOLD US ABOUT 9:11 ON OUR MONEY:

9/11 WAS PLANNED YEARS IN ADVANCE:

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more proof there is they were murdered by your/our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away. 

 If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11 but you are too lazy or fearful to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? 

Once again, we are NOT presenting you "conspiracy theories".

WE ARE PRESENTING YOU, CONSPIRACY FACTS!!!!! 

FOR THE COMPLETE PDF REPORT ON THERMITE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS, CLICK BELOW: 

THERMITE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE

One would think that if a handful of Arabs managed to outwit not merely the CIA and FBI but all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of our allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times on one morning, air traffic control, etc., the President and Congress, the media would be demanding to know how such an improbable event could occur. Instead, the White House put up a wall of resistance to finding out, and Congress and the media showed little interest. 

Hummmm, wonder why the major News agencies didn't pick up the story below? 

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: 

Scientists Discover Both Residues 

And Unignited Fragments of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers

EXOTIC HIGH TECH EXPLOSIVES POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED IN WORLD TRADE CENTER DUST Posted on April 6, 2009 

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.
The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations. Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 
It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. 
The paper ends with the statement, “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. 
It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint. 
The presence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings calls into question the official story that the buildings were destroyed by the airplane collisions and fire alone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official government agency that investigated the building collapses, did not test for residues of explosives.
Richard Gage, AIA, said, “This peer-reviewed scientific study of the disturbing contents of the WTC dust is yet another smoking gun proving to the over 600 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) who I represent that a real investigation must be carried out immediately as to the actual cause of the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11.” 
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009. 
These buildings fell in exactly the same manner as a building falls which has been professionally imploded. 
Instead of falling down in chunky pieces and probably sideways which would have been expected had the government story actually been true, these two towers fell straight down in their "footprint" and all that steel and concrete dissolved into dust!  Physics fails to substantiate the government's official position that the buildings fell because they were struck by commercial airliners! 
This DVD, "9/11: DIRECTOR'S CUT In Plane Site", has proven the most important, and popular, of the videos produced on the attacks of 9/11. 
You will see some really startling truths: 
1) Why did a FOX News employee report seeing no windows on Flight 175?, calling the plane NOT a commercial jetliner? 2) What is that pod underneath belly of both airliners crashing into WTC and did the pod cause the flash of fire just before airliner hit? 3) Listen to NYC firefighters describe the explosions they saw and heard just before WTC collapsed; 
4) If both towers are still standing, what caused the huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex? Never before reported phenomenon; 
5) The Physics of the Pentagon strike simply do not match up at all, plus TV feed showing onlooker saying he had seen a cruise missile strike the Pentagon; 
6) Convincing evidence that planes hitting WTC were remote controlled using proven Pentagon capability; 
7) Excellent feed of Oklahoma City bombing showing TV news clips where news anchors are talking about bombs going off and other bombs found, inside Murrah Building. 
 In fact, the entire government lie about the attacks on 9/11 revolve around the incredible statement which government investigators told eyewitnesses to the Oklahoma City Bombing: "You did not see what you think you saw"!   On the movie, "The Truman Show", the creator was asked why Truman never thought to challenge the reality of his life. 
The Director chillingly said, "People tend to accept the reality as it is presented to them". -- Truer words have never been spoken. Now you know the propaganda principle upon which the attacks of 9/11.
**Some excerpts By Greg Szymanski 
 There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor. 
The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them. 
Now, almost four years later, Wittenberg is still shaking his head in disbelief more than ever, saying the country he loved and fought so bravely 40 years ago has fallen in the deep, dark and sinister hands of fascist leaders who are quickly turning America into a military state. 
Although back in the beginning he seemed like a lone wolf in the hen house, he’s noticed, especially in the last six months, more Americans waking up to the cold reality that the U.S. government staged 9/1l, started an illegal war in Iraq and basically is criminally responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives here and abroad. 
Even though it’s a hard pill for some to swallow, Wittenberg says Americans need to “wake up and wake up fast,” holding those in government responsible even though it may mean a total makeover of the American political system. 
And for these despicable actions now taking place in the name of freedom, the former F-100 Vietnam fighter pilot, who knows what it’s like to be in harms way, directed a little military jab toward the Commander and Chief, saying: “Oh, why doesn’t he wake up and just fall on his sword.” 
Talking about his obvious disgust for the Bush administration, he bundles 9/11 into the neo con’s “neat little contrived war package,” saying it was the lynch pin needed to usher in a state of constant fear, a climate of war and a perfect setting for the unconstitutional Patriot Act and eventual martial law. 
“If you would have told me back in the 1970s this was going to happen to America, I would have never imagined it. It’s just not the same country I grew up in as all our Constitutional freedoms are being stripped away right before our very eyes,” said Wittenberg in a telephone conversation from his home in Carefree Az., a picturesque and serene place on the map near Scottsdale. “The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple. 
I also thoroughly went over the recent 9/11 Commission report, finding about 110 outright lies and numerous other half-truths and omissions in an obvious cover-up of not only the truth but of a criminal investigation. -- “Condaleeza Rice lied through her teeth when she testified and if I would have had her on the stand for 10 minutes, I would have had her in tears.” 
Concerning 9/11, Wittenberg knew right off the bat the hijackers - who couldn’t handle a Piper Cub - couldn’t fly the ‘big birds” he flew for so many years, knowing the planes were also incapable of performing such high speed maneuvers as the government claimed. 
He also knew the possibility of jet fuel bringing down the towers made no sense. In fact, he knew the whole 9/11 story made about as much sense as crossing the Atlantic in a row boat. -- 
And right after 9/11 when it was unpopular and considered almost treasonous to question the government, Wittenberg became the first commercial airline pilot with experience flying the jets used in 9/11 to publicly denounce the government story. 
Although speaking publicly on many occasions about the fictitious government account of 9/11, it wasn’t until Sept. 16, 2004, his controversial remarks aired on Wing TV, sparking a heated debate among pilots and others clinging to the flimsy government account.  
Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.” 
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience. 
“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.  
“I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn’t jump in and fly one,” he added. 
Finding more inconsistencies with the government story about Flight 77, Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago. 
“If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted,” said Wittenberg. “Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight 77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed and even the plane’s flight identification goes with it. 
“All that’s left on the controller’s screen is a green blip, that’s it. But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned off. 
How would she even have known the flight number? The whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example.” And from the moment Wittenberg called attention to the lies, he’s been in the cross hairs defending his story, defending it by using a little bit of psychology, a lot of history and asking critics to answer questions before drawing conclusions. 
“I’ve learned over the years, it’s hard to change anybody’s mind when they really aren’t listening,” said Wittenberg. “So, I just decided to fire back a lot of questions to those people who believe the government story. 
“I ask them explain how Building No.7 collapsed? I ask them why haven’t the “black boxes” been recovered? I ask them to explain how jet fuel – fuel that burns cold, not hot -- could bring down two high rise structures when more than 90% of the fuel on board burned outside the buildings?” 
And Wittenberg has hundreds of other tough questions ready, but said it’s also important to put 9/11 and the Iraq war in a historical prospective. 
“Is 9/11 and the phony war on terror any different or more serious than Pearl Harbor and World War II?,” asks Wittenberg. “The bottom line is all wars are contrived and it is these rich bankers and financiers who have pulled the strings and who have put these contrived events like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor into motion.”** ------------------------------------------------------------------- FORMER MINNESOTA GOVERNOR JESSE VENTURA SAYS THE WTC COLLAPSE WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. NOTE: WE ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THE MOTIVES OF VENTURA. THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE HE IS CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. BUT HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH HERE:
 AUSTIN, Texas, April 3 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) 
 Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura blasted the official 9/11 story - citing that evidence disproves the government's claims that jet fuel melted the Twin Towers' steel girders. 
"How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?" asked Ventura. "Never before in the annals of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did." 
Ventura said he was convinced the collapses of the towers and WTC Building 7 were too similar to the controlled demolition of Las Vegas hotels. 
Ventura has experience with explosives from Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL training and believes unequivocally the buildings were deliberately imploded. 
"I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense," -- 
Ventura expressed regret that he had initially believed the official story because he could have used his power as governor to raise pointed questions in the media. 
"I kicked myself when it initially happened that the light didn't go off but I was so shocked that this thing had even taken place that I apologize for not being more aware," said Ventura, adding that watching Loose Change at the insistence of his son was part of the catalyst for his wake up call. 
The Governor's bold comments about 9/11 come on the heels of similar views expressed by American icon Willie Nelson during an interview on the same radio show in February.** 
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This short video tells it all:  
Need more proof? Here's EYEWITNESS testimony offering further proof of explosions in the Twin Towers
 
"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."-FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI --
 
"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?" -ASSISTANT FIRE COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY --
 
"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'." -PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA --
 
FDNY CAPTAIN DENNIS TARDIO, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom,boom." 
 
In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved firefighters in the south tower: -- Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion. Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion. Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion. --
 
Firefighter LOUIE CACCHIOLI, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above"? After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman "heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator." After they pried themselves out of the elevator, "another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, "Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here"

Here are Prominent Structural Engineers who say the official Version of 9/11 is "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" and "Violates the Law of Physics" -- Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. JOERG SCHNEIDER AND DR. HUGO BACHMANN) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. --
KAMAL S. OBEID, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: -- "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition" --
 
RONALD H. BROOKMAN, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: -- "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." -- 

GRAHAM JOHN INMAN, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: -- "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" --
 
PAUL W. MASON, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: -- "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"  


DAVID SCOTT, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ." --
 
NATHAN LOMBA, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states -- "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: 
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures. -- 
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. 
This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. 
Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. 
These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. 
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. 
Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. 
The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. 
Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. -- 
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures." 

EDWARD E. KNESL, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes: "We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. -- We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. --
 
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?" DAVID TOPETE, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California. -- 
Here's other Structural Engineers who agree that Jet fuel DID NOT bring down the Twin Towers on 9/11 but were imploded with explosives already in the buildings: -- CHARLES PEGELOW, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas -- DENNIS WATERTON, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin -- WILLIAM RICE, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College: -- There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly which include: --
 
MARX AYRES, A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition. -- 
MILLS M. KAY MACKEY, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out: "The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" --
 
DWAIN A. DEETS, Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering says: - "The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].'' --
 
DR. STEVEN E. JONES, A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition --
 
DR. CROKETT GRABBE, a U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition --
 
Danish physicist BENT LUND, an expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives. 
 
DANNY JOWENKO, A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded. --
 
DR. HEIKKI KURTTILA, a safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition." --
 
DR. JOEL S. HIRSCHHORN, a 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member is calling for a new investigation of 9/11 --
 
DR NIELS HARIT, a Danish professor of chemistry said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this." --
 
DR. BRUCE R. HENRY, a former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives." --
 
EDWARD S. MUNYAK, a mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.   ENVER MASUD, the former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. 
GARY WELZ, a professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"
The photo below shows how explosives are attached to a building. It is attached at an angle so when it is detonated, the steel columns collapse into each other.    In this photo you see a massive steel column at ground zero from the World Trade Center and you can a the column behind the worker is sliced at an angle which is exactly what is used in professional demolitions.** --  Patriots Question 9/11 
We highly recommend the above website where you can read testimonies of: 
190+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, question 9/11 -- 670+ Engineers and Architects, question 9/11 -- 
200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals, question 9/11 -- 
400+ Professors Question 9/11 -- 
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members, question 9/11 -- 
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals, question 9/11 -- 
All question the Official Story of 9/11: -- 
 Listen to Richard Gage who represents architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth, is interviewed on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, California, about the events of September 11, 2001. 
He has been an architect for over twenty years, and is experienced in steel structures. When were the explosives planted? Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. 
The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." 
Marvin Bush  The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites." -- Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. 
The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards. 
The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves. 
Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized. 
Heightened WTC Security Alert Had Been Lifted The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said. [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. 
But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY NewsDay] -- Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down 
On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." 
Coincidently , Marvin Bush was in New York on 9/11 
ENTER LARRY SILVERSTEIN:

Also, Larry Silverstein, who owned world trade centers, took out insurance for 3 point 5 billion dollars specifically in case of an act of "terrorrism" for his property.

Instead of renovation, Silverstein was rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. 
Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. 
The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself. 
As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex. 
AMERICA! ARE YOU STARTING TO GET THIS? Let's listen to Silverstein himself as he admits that they decided to "Pull it" (referring to Trade Center 7)
    So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. 
And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? 
The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." 
Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? 
Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant? 
The only reasonable conclusion is that Larry Silverstein's statement is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, meaning that the official version of what happened to WTC 7 is false, and casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of a foreign origin destroyed the twin towers, as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11. 
Note that this admission is a statement against Silverstein's own interests (putting him at odds with the official version of events and potentially jeopardizing his insurance claims). Such statements are given great weight as a matter of law. 
 Larry Silverstein, you may recall, is a reputed mobster who allegedly got his start in the sex services business and then oozed into real estate. Two months before 9/11, 
Silverstein finalized his 100-year-lease on the white elephant, condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center complex and proceeded to double the insurance and hardball his insurers into changing the policy to “cash payout.”  On 9/11/01, Silverstein skipped his usual breakfast at the top of the North Tower. He says his wife reminded him of an appointment with his dermatologist. 
Other family members also stayed away, with other excuses. All of those who breakfasted there died. Silverstein and family survived. 
After confessing on national television to blowing up World Trade Center 7, Silverstein went to court and asked for and received double indemnity, including almost a billion dollars for WTC-7 the very building he had confessed to blowing up. 
Larry had the chutzpah to claim that there were two separate, unrelated terrorist attacks (the two planes) so he should get twice the money. Somehow that worked, presumably thanks to a mobbed-up judge. “Lucky Larry” walked away with more than five billion dollars, plus rights to rebuild. -- 
But that wasn’t enough chutzpah for Larry. For the past several years he’s been back in court, asking for 11 billion dollars from the airlines’ insurers. 
Now Silverstein has somehow convinced AMR, the parent company of American Airlines, to give him a special dispensation. Even though AMR has filed bankruptcy, which theoretically should stop all lawsuits against it, the company’s attorneys have for unstated reasons chosen to insert a special rider into their bankruptcy agreement which allows Silverstein to continue suing the company.
According to the Wall Street Journal: h1. Silverstein’s company, which leased the Twin Towers and two other World Trade Center buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is seeking billions of dollars in damages for alleged negligence by the airline, according to the lawsuit. 
It is also seeking compensation for the lost rental income; the developer had signed 99-year leases for the space just two months before the attack. 
Lost rental income?! Larry, those Towers were condemned for asbestos! 
You would have had to spend many billions, probably double-digit billions, to scrape every bit of asbestos off the frames of those buildings to legally collect rental income. Not only that, but the Towers had a very high vacancy rate and antiquated communications infrastructure. 
New York City had been desperately seeking a way to demolish the Towers for at least a decade, but could not do so because of the asbestos. 
The WTC complex was a gigantic money-loser for the City, and it would have quickly bankrupted any private owner…had not a certain act of urban renewal by other means taken place on 9/11/01. As if all that isn’t enough chutzpah, get this: Larry Silverstein used his 9/11 insurance fraud money to buy Chicago’s Sears Tower! How could Lucky Larry possibly top all of his previous acts of over-the-top chutzpah? Simple: 
He could blow up the Sears Tower, brag about it on national TV, and collect more double-digit billions in insurance money on the premise that it was somehow the fault of the Muslims. -- After all, Lucky Larry is on a winning streak. Will he roll the dice one more time? 
So, here are the facts: 
 ---------------- **Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11** ----------  **The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11** --------------  **There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved (confirmed here)** --------------  **A tenant of the World Trade Center hired a "sprinkler repairman" shortly before 9/11, and gave him access to 6 underground levels at World Trade Center building 1** --------------------------------  **And, as an interesting coincidence, a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings** --------------------------------------------------  **The chief electrical engineer who wired the World Trade Centers (Richard Humenn) says that people working on the elevators could have planted explosives:**  -------------------------------------------  **Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, in his talk on the destruction of the Twin Towers, pointed out that:**  --------------------------------------  **"Those [core] columns which were situated adjacent to and accessible from inside the elevator shafts failed at an early stage of the collapse."** -------------------------------  **Those columns which were remote from the elevator shafts, and not accessible from the elevator shafts, survived the early stages of the collapse."** ---------------------------------------  **Indeed, a top demolition expert says that with access to the elevator shaft, a team of loading experts would have access to the columns and beams:** ----------------------------------------------  **According to USA Today: "On Sept. 11, ACE Elevator of Palisades Park, N.J., had 80 elevator mechanics inside the World Trade Center".** -----------------------------------------------  **NIST itself says that, on 9/11, "Elevators 6A and 7A were out of service for modernization". (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.97).**  -------------------------------------------  **In addition, Ace worked in and around structural steel:** ----------------------------------------------  **A run of approximately 80 vertical feet, employed over 300 running feet of 2-1/2" x 8" and 2"x 2" trough raceway. This run traveled through plaster ceilings, concrete floors and around structural steel.** -------------------------------------------  **Indeed, there had been numerous elevator renovation and and asbestos removal projects in the 6 years prior to 9/11 which allowed access to core building structures, including:** ----------------------------------------------  **1995** --------------------------------------------  **1997** ------------------------------------  **1998** ------------------------------------------  **1998** --------------------------------------------  **2000** -----------------------------------------------
These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives.** 
THE FIVE MAIN FACTS
1. Some of the steel structural columns of the World Trade Center towers, weighing 40 tons, were blasted sideways with such velocity that they stuck in the facades of other buildings hundreds of feet away. It's impossible for a collapse caused only by fire and gravity to have done that. In fact it was done by explosives, which had to have been planted in the towers beforehand. 
2. As the towers were destroyed, the line of disintegration descended at the rate of a free-falling object. If the cause of destruction had been "pancaking",the weight of the rubble crushing each level in turn, as the government says, each intact level would have resisted the fall of the debris reaching it and slowed it down, below the speed of a free-falling object. Therefore, each level must have been blasted away before the rubble reached it. h1. 
3. Below ground level, huge puddles of metal were found that stayed liquid for a month (due to the thermal insulation of the rubble on top of them). Jet fuel is kerosene like charcoal starter fluid. When burning it never reaches the melting point of steel. The steel was melted by thermite -- aluminum-powder incendiary enhanced with sulfur (which forms a lower melting-point compound with iron); the combination is called "thermite". Since the steel members were box columns hollow inside the thermate powder was simply poured into them. When ignited it was held in place by the columns until it melted them. h1. 
4. Particles of unburned thermite have been found in the dust from the demolition of the towers, and these have now been thoroughly analyzed by physical and chemical methods. They are extremely small (0.2 - 3.0 mm) and thin (0.02 - 0.2 mm) chips, which could only have been made by very high-tech processes. It is absolutely impossible for this nano-thermite material to have been created by Osama bin Laden and "Al-Qaeda". But it has been made by the U.S. government for use as a weapon. h1. 
5. The irrefutable conclusion: the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives and incendiaries planted in the buildings. It was impossible for Arabs to get in and do that. (But the company that provided security for the WTC had Marvin Bush brother of George W Bush on its board of directors.)** THE ILLUMINATI OF TODAY: NUMEROLOGY IS ONE FACET THEY USE TO BRING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER:

So, that brings us to the illuminati. The illuminati of today believe they are the descendants of Cain and Lucifer was their father. That's why the illuminati of today in-breed and pay close attention to genealogies and don't marry outsiders. They want to keep their Luciferian bloodlines intact. They plan their diabolical agenda through secret societies like the Masons, Bilderbergers, Skull and Bones, Jesuit Order etc. They plan events through numerology. Illuminati power numbers are 11 and 13.

Satanists believe that a carefully planned event must be carried out according to the correct numbers, or it may not be successful. They go to great lengths to make an event occur according to the correct numbers.... so 11 is the essence of all that is sinful, harmful, and imperfect. It is also the number of the Antichrist because the Bible refers to him as the "11th" horn. Thus, while 11 is very important, multiplication's are also important, such as 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, and 99. Now, let us review the tremendous instances where the 9/11 attacks occurred by the Power of "11". 
9/11 ATTACKS: AN EXERCISE USING THE NUMBER "11"

**1. The first 11 is formed by the day on which this tragedy occurred, September 11.
=====
2. The second 11 is formed by adding the 9th month, September, and the date, [1 plus 1], forming another 11.
=====
3. The third 11 is formed by the airplane number that first crashed into the World Trade Tower. That plane was American Airlines Flight #11.
======
4. The fourth 11 is formed by the airplane number that crashed into the Pentagon. That plane was United Airlines Flight #77 [11 x 7].
=====
5. The fifth 11 is formed by the North Twin Tower of the World Trade Center was 110 stories tall [11 x 10]
=====
6. The sixth 11 is formed by South Twin Tower, the World Trade Center was 110 stories tall [11 x 10]
=====
[NOTE: Girders of these towers were set 22" apart! 11x2;
=====
[Construction began in 1966. Not only is this the year in which the Church of Satan was founded, when you add the digits together, they equal another "22", 1+9+6+6 = 22;
=====
[The first elevator "skyshaft" was set at the 44th floor, 11x4
=====
= 7. The Architecture of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, The Twin Towers formed an 11 as they stood before the attack
=====
8. The eighth '11' is formed by one of the doomed flights, where the crew totaled '11'.
=====
9. The ninth '11' is formed by the fact that September 11 is the 254th day of the year. When you add 2 + 5 + 4 you get '11'
=====
10. The tenth '11' is formed because, after September 11, there are 111 days left in the year.
======
11. The eleventh '11' is formed by the historic fact that New York State was the 11th state to join the Union in preparation to create the 13-state confederation that would declare independence from England.**
=====
12. "11 Years To The Day" On September 11, 1990, President George Bush (Sr.) delivered a speech to the Congress entitled, "Moving Toward A New World Order". Precisely 11 years to the day after President Bush delivered this speech praising the New World Order, and declaring it to be an inevitable fact, a mighty blow was struck to move the world finally into this global world system. Another of President Bush's infamous quotes also came from this Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when he said in August, 1990, that "this invasion shall not stand, because it threatens the New World Order." Once the Senior Bush introduced this term to the general public, everyone started using it. Let's listen to Bush here as he admits this very thing:
=====
KEEP IN MIND, GEORGE BUSH AND BILL CLINTON ARE ILLUMINATI BLOODLINES!



Let's take a closer look at another videotape: (BELOW). You might not have caught this until we look at it frame by frame. Is this a normal facial configuration to you? Or something more demonic? Micro-expressions like this caught on one frame of film can be very telling. (NOTE THE REPTILIAN EYE CONFIGURATION WITH ELONGATED PUPILS AND ANIMAL LIKE SAGGING FACIAL STRUCTURE). I'm surprised he's not spitting pea soup at the camera!



HERE'S THE ENTIRE VIDEO:

SO WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11?
The Illuminati, which is an informal term used today to refer to the global elite. 
 They are the movers and shakers of this sinful world most of which are members of the occult. 
They control the central banks, top governments, the Supreme Court, wars, mainstream newsmedia, etc. Their official headquarters is the Council on Foreign Relations. Some members includes the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Rudolph Giuliani, the Bush family, Henry Kissinger, the DuPont family, and hundreds of others. All recent Presidents have been members. 
 Nearly all White House staff have come from this woefully evil organization as well. 
 These are the culprits behind the 911 attacks. Amazingly, as America's preachers are publishing tracts condemning the Muslim world as crazed bombers, not a word is being spoken, or a tract published, exposing the Satanic Bohemian Grove, where top U.S. government and corporation leaders attend every year to worship Satan. 
 What is wrong with today's preachers? 1st Timothy 6:10 gives us the answer... "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." The pastor who speaks the truth of these evils to his congregation is likely to end up in the poor house. 2nd Timothy 4:3 tells us why, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 
 The United States has deteriorated into an intolerant society, where people will only come to church if it is to their liking, and the message makes them feel good about themselves. Even our best pastors today refrain from touching upon certain taboo issues. 
 Some Christian leaders are even teaching that it is sinful for U.S. citizens to cry aloud against the crimes being committed by our government. -- 
An overwhelming amount of irrefutable evidence has been uncovered, including tons of disturbing facts that cannot be explained away, concerning the 911 attacks. 
 The smoking gun of 911 is presidential directive w199-eye. 
 To understand the motive behind this directive, one must look deeper into the Bush families partnership with the Carlyle Group in Saudi Arabia. Also, please view the documentary on the Bush Family Fortunes. The terrorist didn't come from Iraq, they came from Saudi Arabia, friends of the Bush family. Please watch Illuminazi 911 (Free 1:23 hour startling video by Anthony J. Hilder). 
 As you can clearly see, Islam is the least likely suspect in the 911 attacks. In fact, they are not suspects at all. The bizarre circumstances surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 is another smoking gun. There's even a video of a BBC Reporter announcing that Building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually fell! 
 This is irrefutable evidence of a government conspiracy against U.S. citizens. 
 CONCLUSION 
 Wake up America! Stop blaming the Muslims. The true culprits behind 911 needed a fall guy, i.e., someone to blame, so they chose Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency, or as some have called it, Cocaine Import Agency). 
 The Bush administration has committed more crimes against U.S. citizens than any other administration in history, from the anti-American Patriot Acts to the Inside Job of 911.  Islam is the perfect scapegoat for a much greater evil at work in the world today--The Illuminati. 
 I would also highly recommend the eye-opening book, The New World Order, by Ralph A. Epperson; 1990; ISBN: 0-9614135-1-4; publisher: PUBLIUS PRESS, Tucson, Arizona. 
 The average person, Christians included, believe what they see and hear on the television (or should I say, Devilvision?). 
 God has given us the truth today, but you have to DESIRE the truth first in order to search for it. It's so much easier to just sit in front of the TV, listening to FOX/CNN LIARS, than it is to actually pick up a book and study for the truth. The New World Order is here; but sadly the average Christian today doesn't even realize it, which is evidenced by the plethora of Christian leaders in America who genuinely think Islam was responsible for the 911 attacks. 
So who is the real enemy? Over 170 million people were slaughtered by governments during the 20th century. Ten million died in World War I and fifty million died in World War II. 
Of those who were killed during World War II, almost 70% were civilians. 
This so-called collateral damage was a consequence of the bombing by Britain and America. Then there was Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a potential war in Iran and the unpublicized CIA wars. 
Yet, many citizens, rather than focusing on America’s brutality, claim that Islam is violent. -- 
The Muslims are not the enemy. 
They don’t extort usury through the Federal Reserve; they aren’t manufacturing population-reducing vaccines and GMO seeds; they didn’t devise our abortion laws (about fifty million dead); they didn’t bail out the banks; they didn’t create the Department of Homeland Security and impose the PATRIOT Act; they aren’t wiretapping our private conversations or scanning us at the airport; they didn’t impose godless Communism on several countries and cause the death of millions of innocent people; they haven’t instituted the draconian healthcare laws; they have not orchestrated the nation’s economic crashes; they have not deindustrialized the nation and outsourced so many jobs; they haven’t wiped out the middle class by passing trade laws like NAFTA. 
The enemy are the Globalists who are behind all the World governments! 

THE ENTIRE CAPTURE AND KILLING OF BIN LADEN WAS A BIG FAKE PSY-OP JUST LIKE THE REST OF THIS DECEPTION!!!!


  Website Tracking

THE MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS BEHIND 9/11

OUR WEBSITE IS FREE AND ALWAYS WILL BE. IF YOU FIND OUR SITE USEFUL, PLEASE HELP US CONTINUE TO GIVE YOU THE BEST UPDATES:

THEY TOLD US ABOUT 9:11 ON OUR MONEY:

*Before we get started, I want to pose a question to everyone. What do you think the most dangerous religion in the World is? Islam? Buddhism? Judaism? Christianity? Hinduism? 

 Well if you talk about the number of people killed by this most dangerous religion...it's none of those. In fact, the World's most dangerous religion is Statism. What is Statism you ask? Well, you've heard the phrase never to argue about politics and religion, right? 

The reason is because politics is a religion.**

That's right politics is the act of having faith and a belief in your government. Governments have killed more people over the centuries than all other religions combined! 

You want to watch this video. It may change the way you see governments of the World.....Including your own.**

 

For the thinking people who have looked at the evidence, there has long been no doubt that the twin towers collapsed not from jet fuel as the official government lie wants you to believe. The world trade centers were taken down by internal explosives. 

It was a professional demolition. That's not a theory, 

THAT IS A PROVABLE FACT! 

 As a matter of fact, it can be proven mathematically. It can be proven via physics. 

To disagree is like saying that 2+2 doesn't equal four. For those who have known the truth all along, we are simply proving what you already know by using mathematical equations. 

For those of you who doubt 9/11 was an inside job, we can prove using numbers and simple physics, that once again the government lied to you. 

The twin towers collapsing because of jet fuel is not just unlikely......

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

9/11 Research: Robert Podolski (Physicist, Engineer) - Doesn't Believe the NIST "Collapse by fire Theory"....As a matter of fact, he says it's mathematically impossible!

 

MIT physicist/engineer Jeff King gives his thorough analysis of the WTC collapses on 9/11 and concludes that explosive controlled demolition is the only scientifically explainable hypothesis.

 

Excerpts below from 911blimp.net

Free-Falling Bodies. 

Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie

The "Collapse" Theory Fails Reality Check h1. You can also check out this article for more proof that the twin towers were imploded from the inside:

It's official, 9/11 was a government controlled operation 

 On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) "collapsed". 

People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated on television for days. 

 In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds, Robert Gates, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current Secretary of Defense stated (cached), "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. 

To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale." 

Well, first of all, the American people saw things not with their own eyes but on television, which is comprised nowadays of digital information, which can be manipulated by computers. 

So, right off the top, Gates' premise is flawed. And while the towers are gone, people have, both with their own eyes and on TV, seen magic performed before; eyes can be deceived. 

So let's just examine his other premise: whether or not it is true that people know what they saw.  

(The following must be said before we can get to the physics.) 

The government and the media told us what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational collapse"; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". 

According to the government's, and PBS's, and Popular Mechanics', and Scientific American's theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment. 

According to their "pancake theory", this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to and becoming incorporated into a growing stack of floors falling from above. 

There are some problems with that theory; it does not fit the observed facts: It cannot account for the total failure of the immense core columns, nor the 'disappearance' of that so-called "growing stack", nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity 'collapse' times, nor the huge energy surplus, nor the nanosizes of the 'dust' particles. 

This article focuses on the third of these mentioned discrepancies, and just scratches the surface of the fourth.

h1. The scientists who've concocted the popularized "pancake theory" made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! 

Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists that incredible pancake theory of theirs using simple, high-school physics!

And that's what we're about to do here. 

We're going to check the work something every grade-schooler is taught to do of those "scientists". 

We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11. 

How Gravity Acts Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up...) from trees. 

Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. 

(That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty

gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.) 

Of course, people didn't figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster. --

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity's pull (ie, it's heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed (ie, when it's falling). 

Earth's gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago. 

The Simplest Case From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the earth, earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. -- 

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec. -- 

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec. -- 

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec. -- 

And so on. -- 

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and it's falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet. -- 

   

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic: 

----------------------------------

Velocity = Gravity x Time and Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) 

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds: 

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet:

So after 3 seconds, in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec. 

Checking Our Work OK, we've just solved a simple physics problem! 

Now let's check our work, using conservation of energy. 

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. 

When we take refined oil and burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). 

When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT). 

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. 

If whatever is holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy. 

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows: 

 ----------------------------------------------------------

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height. 

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows: 

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared) 

 ---------------------------------------------------

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.) 

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608 . 

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608. 

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. 

We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. 

Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

 

One Little Complication 

Air resistance. 

 The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. 

They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball. -- 

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. 

As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec. -- 

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. -- 

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". 

The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. 

At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time. 

A Quick Recap Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. 

They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance. -- It is that last sentence which bears repeating. -- 

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward even just having to push air out of the way there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished. -- 

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance. -- 

Free-falling from WTC heights,  the towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. 

------------------------------

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

 or 

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

 h1. Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 h1. 

Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

 -- Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. -- But that can only occur in a vacuum. -- 

-------------------------------------------------

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. 

For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source) -- 

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. --

Observations from 9/11 On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. "quote": At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds"

(That's the government's official number) 

Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that fast. See for yourself: QT Real) 

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. 

That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. -- But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. 

Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years. 

 Air can't do that. 

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? 

(And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?) 

You can move your arms and legs, non-destructively, through water a liquid fluid but not anywhere near as rapidly as you can through air. 

You certainly can't move your arms and legs through solids as rapidly as you can through air. And neither can gravity.

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a gravitational collapse through the path of maximum resistance should [sic] have taken. 

Would it have taken a minute? 

An hour? 

A day? 

Forever? 

Perhaps. 

But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. 

Not even close! 

BOTTOM LINE: WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED BY MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TWIN TOWERS TO HAVE COMPLETELY COLLAPSED WITHOUT INTERNAL EXPLOSIVES!!! 

 

 Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways and even upward ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized, actually disintegrated is a much better word. 

(Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) 

And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. 

 So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once. 

Conclusions in order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met: 

-------------------------------

*The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse 

* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy h1. 

* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity could really be. 

* On 9/11, energy was not conserved. 

However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analysis designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. 

Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. 

The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. 

This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate. 

   

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. 

It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed. h1. The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 h1. The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960. This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning: h1. 

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. 

 The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. 

 The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure. 

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind. 

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. 

 According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 

 As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs. h1. In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. 

 Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that: 

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. 

It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ 

He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. 

 In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… 

A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”

 

This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower. 

Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. 

 According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.” This statement is supported by the following chart: 

Property;

Boeing 707-340. 

Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity. 

23,000 gallons. 

23,980 gallons . 

max takeoff weight . 

328,060 lbs. 

395,000 lbs . 

empty weight. 

137,562 lbs. 

179,080 lbs. 

wingspan. 

145.75 ft . 

156.08 ft . 

wing area. 

3010 ft^2 . 

3050 ft^2. 

length. 

152.92 ft. 

159.17 ft. 

cruise speed. 

607 mph. 

530 mph. 

In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.” 

 Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707: 

 “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. 

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11. 

This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.” This ‘white paper’ concluded that: 

 “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. 

 Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” 

 Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[18] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.” 

The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.. 

Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition: 

“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. 

The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives shaped explosives of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ 

 Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. 

 ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”  

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes: “Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. 

 He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.” 

Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet air--plane.” 

Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. 

 This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001: 

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. 

This intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” 

 Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people. 

As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11. 

In summary, the World Trade Center designers not only contemplated jet fuel fires but they considered the plane crashes that would have caused them. 

They anticipated impact speeds of 600 mph as well as aircraft similar in size to the planes used on 9/11. h1. The towers were designed to survive substantial column loss along with 100 mph winds. 

 They were intended to survive bombings, earthquakes, and hurricanes. 

 If the designers were sufficiently competent in the planning and realization of their award-winning WTC Towers as intended, they should have remained standing. 

 Tragically, they did not. From this irreconcilable fact there can only be one conclusion; There is an alternate explanation for their destruction on 9/11. 

Not only had many witnesses claimed to have seen molten metal, FEMA had performed an analysis of it. Their observations were recorded in Appendix C of their WTC Building Performance Study.[40] Ironically, Robertson stated that he was not aware if anyone had performed an analysis on the molten steel in an interview with Jones who had also performed an analysis of previously molten metal samples from Ground zero. 

Jones’ findings appear to be corroborated by the FEMA report which described “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. 

’”[The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” NIST did not even mention the presence of molten steel and called it “irrelevant to the investigation.”Amazingly, NIST’s 10 000 page, $20 million report couldn’t find the space to mention the earlier findings about the molten steel analyzed in the FEMA report. 

 There have even been reports of evaporated steel.  

The presence of molten steel would be very surprising because jet fuel fires are incapable of melting steel. In fact, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel. 

Consider this: h1. If the official story is true, then companies that offer complex controlled demolitions using explosives are clearly going to be out of business. 

Thanks to those wily hijackers we now have a much cheaper solution. 

If a structural steel high-rise needs to be removed, all that is necessary is to pick a floor somewhere in the upper portion of the building, saw off a few columns, flood the floor with jet fuel, light a match and stand back.  The building will then (about 1 or 2 hours later) miraculously crush itself, shredding the steel into tidy 12-30 ft sections. 

The rest of the building will be conveniently converted into a fine dust that will be spread over a large area so somebody else will have to clean it up! 

Conclusions:

It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. 

 Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. 

 After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. 

 These contradictions must be resolved through the release of all of the pertinent WTC documents that have been withheld since 9/11. h1. More problems with the "Official" story. 

Another eyewitness murdered for telling the truth: 

A Challenge to American Journalism

The significance of the Barry Jennings mystery is that his personal story as recounted on video leads to the conclusion that the destruction of the towers on 9/11 was planned. 

No cause of death has been made public, and the mainstream press has not even covered the death of this American hero. h1. Summary of Case Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. 

Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess.

 -- Jennings publicly shared his experiences with a reporter on the day of 9/11/01, as well as in a lengthy 2007 video interview with Dylan Avery, a small clip of which was then released; subsequently his job was threatened and he asked that the taped interview not be included in Loose Change Final Cut.. However, after an interview with Jennings was broadcast by the BBC in their program The Third Tower ostensibly refuting what he had previously stated to Avery, Avery felt compelled to release the full original video interview to show the distortions made by the BBC. 

 Several other individuals at the Housing Authority also confirmed that they knew Barry Jennings. -- No one has yet been able to contact anyone in the Jennings family and the official cause of death is not yet known. 

 It is very unusual that a prominent - and controversial 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST's report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown-out lobby. 

“Loose Change” director, and narrator Dylan Avery had recently begun investigating the death of Barry Jennings, and had found some new information relating to his death. 

It seems that there is a very good possibility that Jennings’ death could have been due to foul play. Though the investigations are on going, initial findings are somewhat alarming. The conclusion is still forthcoming, but I was shocked by what I heard. 

It seems that Dylan had hired a private investigator to look into Jennings death which remains shrouded in mystery. His motive was simply to bring some closure to the life of Barry Jennings, and in doing so to honor the memory of this brave American. 

The Investigator ended up referring the case to Law enforcement before refunding his pay, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Very unusual to say the least. 

Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale. 

Personally, something is really beginning to stink here. 

Why would a highly paid PI refuse to continue his investigation? 

Why did he refer the matter to police? He is not talking. 

What is he afraid of?

Was he warned to cease and desist? 

If so by whom?

The cause of Jennings' death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with his investigation. 

In spite of the significance of Jennings' position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements.

THE ENTIRE CAPTURE AND KILLING OF BIN LADEN WAS A BIG FAKE PSY-OP JUST LIKE THE REST OF THIS DECEPTION!!!!

 By Joe Monoco

EPH 5:11:DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE UNFRUITFUL DEEDS OF DARKNESS, BUT INSTEAD EXPOSE THEM; --

Website Tracking 



 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------