How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i

keyword : How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i for bootloop , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i for softbrick , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i for hardbrick , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i Error Camera , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i blank screen , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i lost password , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i stuck logo , How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i new 2017. How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i repair phone.

DOWNLOAD FILE via Googledrive HERE

Download one of the above file:

How To Flashing reach quadra rq332i

hi, my name is dave hooper. i want to tell you a story that beganwith an innocent question back when i was just a regular guy. i’d been a career entrepreneurwith some successes and failures. in other words, by this point in my life,i’d been humbled. but we were ok financially, my wife had another sonon the line and life was pretty good. that was february of 2011, which wasthe last normal month i’d ever have. that’s when i first took a closer look at 9/11 and found something astonishing,something that would change my life.

this is the story of how one simple,accidental question came to be and how it lead to another ... and then another ...becoming a research obsession ... that crashed my belief systemand drove my marriage, relationships and sanityto the brink of disaster. and how out from that brinkcame my awakening. you can’t write or talk about it.you just have to see it to believe it. and that’s why this film was born. so, let’s start at the beginning,when my eyes first opened. looking into 9/11, by itself,didn’t bring on this spiritual awakening

but it was the first domino to fall. you're about to get a peek down the rabbit hole. but just a peek.just enough to see that there is one. so get ready becauseyou’re going to see some things that will test your beliefsand your notion of reality. so why don’t we ease into itbecause you know what it’s like when you first open your eyes after a deep sleep.that first light can be intense. my awakening began with a simple question. it occurred as i watched a familiar clipof president bush on the morning of 9/11.

i didn’t realize it then, but this questionwas about to change my life. bush is sitting at booker elementary schoolin sarasota, florida, at 9:05 am when white house chief of staff, andrew cardwhispers into the president’s ear. "a second plane has hit the second tower.america is under attack." that first question was:“why didn’t the secret serviceget him out of there immediately?” they didn’t know how many planeswere hijacked yet or what their targets were. we had 11 reports of hijacked aircraft. there were thousands of planes still flying. as many as a dozen planeswere reported hijacked at one point.

and it was no secret the president was there. the school visit had been made publicon september 7th, four days prior to 9/11. how could anyone be so sure hijackersweren’t already on the way? yet, there he lingered, even after2 more flights were confirmed hijacked, flight 77 and flight 93 (the pentagonand shankesville planes, respectively). somewhere i saw a story claimingthe president’s camp didn't wantto scare the kids at the school. and that's why he stayed,which i found hard to believe. well-trained professionals are going to riskthe balance of power in the world

to spare the feelings of a few kidswho routinely practice fire drills anyway? well, i guess the answer was yesbecause bush stayed until 9:34 am, a full 29 minutes after it was knownwe were under attack. think about that. that would have been29 grueling minutes for everyone, especially those assignedto protect the president. wondering if some hijackers got ambitious; maybe changed their plans in the last few daysafter the school-visit was made public. i guess that someone high-up from the presidentscamp must have known or thought they were safe. i mean, what else could it be?but how could anyone have known that?

i had me thinking but it wasn't a huge deal. i was more intrigued by the type of people i cameacross who also had similar questions about 9/11. these weren’t conspiracy theoristsas i pictured them. these were people in government,aviation, civil defense, architecture, science,engineering, and the military. i decided to look further. i still had no idea the impactthis would have on my life. i started by re-familiarizing myselfwith the incident. or i should say set of incidents. of course,we all remember the 2nd tower being hit.

but i hadn’t put much thoughtinto the other parts of that day. and soon after looking, i was reminded thatthere were several incredible events on 9/11. i’d put almost no thought into the particularsof that day for ten years. but that was about to change. in chronological order,the official version goes like this. four planes were hijacked by 19,mostly saudi-arabian terrorists who then flew or attempted to flythose planes into four u.s. buildings. world trade center 1, world trade center 2, the pentagon and the u.s. capital.three of them were successful.

american airlines flight 11 hit the 1st tower,the north tower at 8:46 am. united airlines flight 175hit the south tower at 9:03 am. american airlines flight 77hit the pentagon at 9:37 am. at 9:59 the south tower collapsedafter burning for less than an hour. at 10:07 am, united airlines flight 93 crashedin a field in shanksville, pennsylvania. then at 10:28 am the north tower collapsed. and i barely remembered that a third buildingat the world trade center, building 7, collapsed at 5:20 pm, to close out the day. the national institute of standards and technology,more commonly known as nist,

backed up the official government versionthat intense fires weakened the steel and caused all three buildings to fail,including building 7, which oddly enough, was not hit by an airplanenor was it exposed to jet fuel, which is what i thought melted the towersto get that progressive collapse started. "and you had that intense heat that wouldprobably weaken the structure as well." as i looked for answers,i found shyam sunder of nist stating, “the buildings were not brought downby explosives.” until then, i didn’t know explosiveswere even in the conversation. and like hearing a child claim innocence beforea question is even posed; it had my eyebrow raised.

"wtc 7 collapsed because of firesfueled by office furnishings, it did not collapse from explosivesor from fuel oil fires." while researching the officialgovernment story, i saw a newsflash that the 9/11 families wantedan investigation of wtc 7. i was a bit surprised. why would theybe questioning the official story? that seemed a little out there, but whocould be more invested than they were? so, i listened to what they had to say. "our perception of what happenedon september 11th is very differentfrom the general public's perception ..." "i believe that the public is still uninformedabout most of the issues that are surrounding ..."

"i just don't think the public at all knows.they want to believe ..." "i think that truth sometimescan be frightening ..." "... there's some deep,deep explaining to do." "the bottom line is thatit needs to be investigated." "we have to demand a new investigation.i want justice here." "nobody ever stoppedto have a scientific investigation ..." what did these familiesknow that i didn't? it’s obvious once you look they’ve beentrying to say something is wrong and we need to look at 9/11more closely, especially building 7.

and they weren’t alone! i foundan endless sea of organizations, rallies, websites, books and films about that day, but i never really heard aboutany of them on the evening news. the families, and many others,were pointing at wtc building 7, the last one to collapse. i wanted to researchwhat was so special about building 7. we were only a few days awayfrom launching my new business when i shared with betsy that i didn’t thinkthere was any harm in pushing it back a bit, so i could look into building 7 for myself. this news, combined with the controversialnature of what i was looking into,

was met with less-than-enthusiasticsupport by my wife, even though she tried to hide it.it was understandable. remember, our baby was due in a few monthsand i was suggesting changes, but they weren’t too big and shewas okay with it, so i moved forward. and that is how it began.i didn’t know it then, but i set us on a course that would leadour marriage to the brink of disaster. but that hadn't happened yet.so let’s pick this back up at building 7. here are some basic facts: world trade center 7, which was locatedin downtown new york city

is sometimes called the salomon brothers buildingbut is most commonly referred to as “building 7". with construction beginning in 1984, it benefited from many modernadvancements in building technology. it was a 47 story, steel-framed,fire-proofed skyscraper standing 550 feet tall. it was 300 feet from the nearest tower,the north tower, or about a football field away. even though it was oneof the largest buildings in manhattan, it looked small next to the twin towers. in september of 2001 building 7 wouldhave been the tallest building in 33 states. it collapsed at 5:20 pmin the afternoon of september 11th.

even though building 7was not hit by an airplane, the official explanation for all three buildingsthat collapsed was that intense fires weakened the steel resultingin total symmetrical building failure. the official story goes on to state that,in building 7, column 79 gave out first, starting a progressive failureof the remaining columns which allowed the building to fallalmost as fast as a bowling ball would ... into it’s own footprint. if a building that size accidentallycollapsed on any other day, it would have been as famousas the titanic sinking.

yet, according to a 2006 zogby poll,43% of americans never even heard of building 7. building 7 housed the cia’s largest stationoutside of washington dc it also contained the secret service’sbiggest field office. the irs, department of defenseand the sec also occupied entire floors. the mayor’s emergency management bunkerwas located in the building, but ironically, it was not used that day. the rest of the tenants were primarily bankssuch as salomon smith barney, which occupied the top 17 floors. many government and sec documentsfor cases primarily against wall street banks,

but also including worldcomand enron were destroyed, crippling the investigationinto thousands of cases. at this point, i didn’t think anythingwas too far out of place. i’d come across a few strange things,but i wasn’t thinking conspiracyor anything like that. i did, however, find it a little odd thatfalling debris could set off a chain of events ultimately turning building 7into a pile of rubble, however, i really didn’t understandthe physics involved. at least not yet. but i didn’t need to understand physicsto find it pretty strange that the whole building would crashthrough itself. i’ve played with legos.

tip over? maybe. but to pile drivethrough itself didn’t make sense. at least, the twin towers were hit by planes.but no plane hit building 7. sometimes it’s easier for me to tacklecomplex issues with simple metaphors. so i thought of a stove. then i imagined what kindof materials would i need to add to the fire so that all 4 legs collapse simultaneously?and i couldn’t answer it. better yet. let’s say, i stacked 10 stoveson top of each other. and then i welded them together,to better represent any of the buildingsthat collapsed that day. now, i go and light, let's say,the 7th stove up in the stack. what could cause the 7th stove’s legsto give out simultaneously

and cause every other stove below itand above it to break apart into tiny pieces crashing to a pile of rubble in a few seconds? and how could that happen 3 times in a row? after breaking it down, i felt a little pitin my stomach for the first time, but i assured myselfthat i must be missing something. with that said, it was time to takea crash-course in high-rise fires. it seems that high-rise fires are more commonthan i thought. i found hundreds of them. according to a 2011 report bythe national fire protection association, there are an average of 110 fireseach year in buildings over 13 stories tall.

according to the report, between 2005and 2009, there were 550 high-rise fires. of course there are many moreall throughout history. but let’s talk about someof the more startling ones: sao paolo, brazil.the joelma building. 1974. sparked by an electrical fire, the residentialbuilding burned twice as long as the twin towers. but yet it stood. the underlying structure wasn’teven weakened. in fact it’s still in use today. the mgm grand, which is now bally’sin las vegas nevada caught fire in 1980, killing 85 people. it’s had a few face-lifts and ownership changes

but the structure underneath was nevercompromised. it's still in use today. los angeles, california, 1988. what was then called the first interstatebank building burned for 3.5 hours. no structural failure at all. in fact, an insurance company moved inand today it’s known as the aon center. in 2004 the parque central buildingin caracas, venezuela, the country’s tallest buildingburned for 17 hours. the faã§ade was repairedand it is in use today. philadelphia, pennsylvania,one meridian plaza. 1991.

burned for 18 hours. it stood. beijing, china, the mandarin oriental hotel.burned for 6 hours in 2009. it stood. chechnya’s tallest building burnedfor 7 hours in april 2013. it stood. dubai, moscow, zurich, and on and on.i was starting to see a trend. fires don’t melt steelor cause buildings to collapse. the wtc has itself burned many timeswith no structural failure or weakening. some significant dates include february 13, 1975, when the 9th to 14th floors burned for 3 hours. no damage or weakeningof the structure was recorded.

"the fire began in an electricalwiring closet on the 11th floor." fire department officialsand building officials here say that there's no chance that the wtccould become a type of "towering inferno" ..." and in 1993, it survived a bombdetonated in a highly vulnerable area with no structural damage caused by the firesthat resulted from the explosion. there was of course damage from the bomb,which had to be repaired. but through it all the towershave always stood. sometimes buildings do collapsebecause of structural failure, but it’s usually a design problem,earthquake damage or a controlled demolition.

buildings don’t come down becauseof fire but when they do collapse, they tend to tip over and stay connected. after reviewing hundreds of fires,i could find only three occurrences of fire bringing down a steel-framedhigh-rise in all of history. and all three were on 9/11. "high-rise buildings simplydo not collapse due to fire." "the collapse of wtc 7was primarily due to fire." "but there's a problem: office andopen air jet fuel fires can not melt steel." "a lot of things in these kind of buildingshave to be fire resistant by nature;

it’s required by code. so there really isn’ta whole lot of fuel in there to begin with." "the national institute of standardsand technology said that the maximum air temperaturewas about 1800 â°f or 1000 â°f colder thanwhat's needed to melt steel." "it takes a blast furnace with air blowing,with blowers to try to get steel melt." "so if you have a flame at 750 degrees, you can hold that flame under a steel beam forever and you’ll never reach a high enough temperature to bend steel, let alone melt it."

"nist would have us to believethat these were typical office fires, scattered office fires if you will,that brought this building down. since the mid 60's i've triedto follow high-rise fires and i'm not aware of any high-rise buildingthat has come down as a result of fires." "we're seeing black smokecoming out of the windows. that means that the fires were oxygen starved." "the kerosene would have burned off very quickly. what wasn't destroyed in the initial fire ballwould have been consumed fairly rapidly and would have only really servedas an ignition for the rest of the material."

"none of which would have been in my experienceas a fire protection engineer hot enough to sufficientlysoften the steel or damage the steel to result in a total collapse of the building." "what we're told is that the planeshit the buildings and there was an explosion and a fire and about an hour an a half laterin the case of the north tower the buildings collapsed due tostructural weakening due to the fires. fires in high-rises have never brought downa steel frame high-rise building, at all, ever." the bottom line is this.steel-framed high-rises don’t collapse, especially into their own footprint,because of fire.

this is why builders and architectshave loved steel for a hundred years. a fire typically can’t compromisethe steel structure. of course 9/11 was nota typical day with typical fires. jet fuel was involved. but, the kerosene (or the jet fuel)just can’t explain it. set aside for a minute that only2 of the buildings were subjected to kerosene. now think of a kerosene lampor a kerosene heater. in the history of kerosene lamps, i’ve never heard of one being meltedbecause the fires were too hot.

in fact, the wtc fires were starvedof oxygen and therefore heat. you can see it in the black smokecoming from the towers. yet molten steel was foundin the rubble of all three buildings. something else had to provide the heatand energy needed to liquefy, melt or even microscopically bend the steelin any of those three buildings. and unless you work for nist,scientists agree that neither jet fuel nor the fuel nor the furnishings insidethose buildings could haveheated the steel enough to melt it. i was starting to realize that something elsemust have been involved in the collapse of, at least,building 7, if not all three.

okay, maybe airplanes weakenedthe structure of the twin towers, which we’ll be looking into more deeply later. for now, believe it or not, planes have hitmany buildings throughout history and none fell. of course, none were hit with planesas large as the ones on 9/11. but that still leaves building 7.i couldn’t explain it. can you tell me that if i throw a flamingchunk of metal off of one building, i can make the building next to it collapsein on itself a few hours later? why do demolition companies even existif you can just light a few random firesand wait for an implosion? maybe the steel structure in building 7was so badly damaged from falling debris

that the entire structure was compromised? it still can’t explain the symmetrical collapse,but i looked anyway. other buildings that have sufferedsevere structural damage by natural disaster and bombsdidn’t disintegrate into rubble piles. they stayed together in some way.even the buildings in the trade center complex that suffered worse damage than building 7didn’t collapse in on themselves. this uneasy feeling was growing, but there was muchmore to understand about building 7’s collapse, especially before i started jumpingto conclusions in my own head. i needed to hear from some experts.

"it just didn't add up, the way the whole thing sort of pile-drove itself into the groundand all at near free-fall speed." "it collapses straight down into its own footprint at free fall speed. this is uncanny. there's 40,000 tons of structural steeldesigned to resist this collapse." "this building had 40,000 tonsof structural steel in its structural system and that is intended to keep itfrom going anywhere." "the animation sequence from thenational institute of standards and technology form their mathematical modelof the collapse of building 7

and they have the inside membersof one column that gave way, which they claim resulted in the collapseof all the surrounding members and then this precipitated a global collapse. this would just not be physically possiblefor a gravitational collapse." according to nist the failure occurredat column 79 on level 12. this means, basically, as they're talkingabout a single columnar collapse or failure, that resulted in the total collapse of the building.that just does not make any sense. regardless of the engineeringthe logic tells you that if you have a single failureat some random point in the building

that the entire building is not going to collapse. buildings don't break that way. the story that just a few columnscan cause a synchronized global collapse, an implosion, well that's just nonsense. exterior columns on the outsideas well as on the inside at the bottom would have to be severedalmost at the same time. the building would want to topple over,it would want to bend over over that weakened areaand topple over sideways. what we saw was that the structurescame straight down upon itself.

it cannot happen that whenyou have asymmetric damage you will get a perfectly symmetrical collapse. at free fall speed, that's impossible, that'sa violation of the fundamental laws of physics. that says that for every actionthere's an equal and opposite reaction. if you took a billiard ball and dropped itthe height of the twin towers and you merely stopped itand started it every floor in free fall it would take over a minuteand a half to reach the ground. the buildings were down in 10 seconds. buildings just don't behave like that.if floors fall they tend to fall

and are braced by the floordirectly beneath it, and there's some delay there. and then the next floor falls with two floorsand there's some more delay. the buildings actually acceleratedas they came down. meaning they were not getting resistancefrom these massive columns in the center of the core of this building. and when it's all finished,the outside walls from the lower floors are piled one on top of the otherright in the middle of the building. "so it's fiction to say that a buildingas modern as wtc7

comes down with no resistance." "it does not add up.""the official explanation was dead wrong.""it's just not possible." "just doesn't make sense. its' not how it works." "it can't happen.""never before in history ...""it just can't happen." "well that's just nonsense.""and that cannot happen." "couldn't happen." "it's fiction.""there's definitely much moregoing on than just fire." "this was a controlled event.""the symmetry is the smoking gun." "in short: the evidence is clear. we're witnessing not the collapseof a building but its demolition."

at the time, i was thinking, “wait a minute!” my heart was pounding. my adrenaline was flowing. and i had a knot in my stomach. the collapse never looked right to me,but then again, i never really thought that itdefied the laws of physics. my imagination started to run wild. could the hijackers have wired the buildings? maybe the government didn’t want usto know how really lax our security was and that’s why they covered up this fact?

maybe it was pre-wired for some reason?but that made no sense. if it was a controlled demolition, it would explainhow much of these buildings were reduced to ash. it would explain why the towers fellafter burning for only an hour or so. it would explain why they implodedinstead of tearing apart. it would explain why they all fellat close to free fall speed. it sure looked like a controlled demolition ...in retrospect. i couldn’t stop at this point.i needed to know more. late nights. coffee. research.my life was changing before my very eyes. i had taken my very first stepdown the rabbit hole.

little did i know how much deeper it would go. by now i knew the firesdidn’t bring down the buildings. and even if fire could somehow melt steel, the buildings would nothave fallen in on themselves. they would have tipped over or torn apart. i was starting to find credible peopletalking about controlled demolitions, and the use of explosives and molten steel. my mind kept wandering tryingto imagine how all this tied together. but first, i still needed to understandmore about what happened.

"and what we find down thereare pools of molten iron." "what does that mean?" "several tons.exactly, what is that doing there? first responders see it,the structural engineers see it. it's documented by fema,the melting of steel. normal office fires is what's supposedto have brought these buildings down, along with jet plane impacts. but jet fueland office fires don't produce molten iron. or molten steel, it does notbegin to melt until 3000 â°f." "at one point i think it were about 2800 â°f" "did you see that stuff before now?""yes" "it's red hot"

"eight weeks later we still got fires burning." the concept of molten iron is very important here. in order to get molten iron,you have to reach unbelievable heat levels. it takes much, much more energythan you could find with any combination of burningoffice furniture, jet fuel or gravity. molten iron can be an indicationof the use of thermite. thermite, thermate, and nanothermiteare super hot-burning substances used by the military that can cut through steel. it can supply its own oxygenso it can burn under water.

it would explain how fires burnedat ground zero for 3 months even after the area was flooded. "so thermite would alsoexplain potentially the fact that the fires could notbe put out at ground zero. the fires lasted for quite a while." the fires were finally put outon december 13th 2001, just over 3 months after 9/11. making it the longest burningbuilding fire in recorded history. they burned under water for much of that time.

these fires were a big question mark. but first ... it was time to takea closer look at nist. they are the scientific agency backingthe official version of events, as most americans know them. i was hoping they wouldcurb my growing anxiety. instead, what i learned about nist,made my heart sink. to understand nist, you need tounderstand their relationship to explosives. they have vehemently deniedthat there were any. not only did they not check for them,they state that none were used, plain and simple.

in fact, they have gone to unbelievablelengths to prove that explosives or even the evidence of explosives,like pops going off, did not exist. some people might call it incompetence.others might call it selling your soul. "nist concedes that they foundno evidence for explosives. so then we asked them:"well, did you look?" and they said: "no, we did not look for explosivesor residues of explosives"." "so the preconceived notion of nist isthat there’s no evidence for explosives, and so there’s no point in looking. that is the most unscientific thingthat you can possibly think of,

not to look because you don’texpect to find evidence. and in fact, the evidence is overwhelming ..." "nist computed what they claimedwould be the minimum loudness of an explosion that could sever column 79with a single blast. then they claimed no observers detectedexplosions as loud as their predictions." "this size blast would have producedan incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse,nor reported by witnesses." "on the basis of this artificialthreshold of interest they swept aside all evidenceof actual explosions

and concluded that no explosives contributedto the destruction of the building." "we did not find any evidence that explosiveswere used in the collapse ..." "was that a secondary explosion?" "yes it was.that was definitely a secondary explosion." secondary explosions,sometimes described as pops or booms, are mini-detonations apart fromthe primary explosion of the plane impacts. these types of explosions are routinein a controlled demolition. they were heard in all three buildingslong before any collapsed. "it sounded like gun fire.you know, bang, bang, bang, bang. and then all of a sudden three big explosions."

"that sound was not picked up by any of the videosor witnesses that we have talked to." "you heard explosions, like baboom." "we just heard one more explosion.that’s about the fourth one we’ve heard." "cnn is now reporting that therewas a third explosion at the wtc." "equally unempirical is the treatmentby nist and popular mechanics of reports of explosions beforeand during the collapses. both documents pretend thatthere were no explosions." "a secondary explosion. we got numerous peoplecovered with dust from a secondary explosion." okay, you get the point.

why was nist denying these explosions?why are they a big deal? well those explosions are a strong signof a controlled demolition, but they’re not proof positive of one. if it was a controlled demolition,there would be other signs like misfired explosivesand particles in the dust. "so their preferred methodof dealing with this problem was to ignore or even deny the reports. john gross, one of the chief authorsof the nist report, was captured on film whilehe was making a public presentation

saying that he knew of absolutelyno eyewitness who had said there was a pool of molten steel." "first of all let's go back to your basic premisethat there was a pool of molten steel. i know of absolutely nobody,no eyewitnesses who said so ..." "you'd get down belowand you'd see molten steel. molten steel, running down the channel rails. like you're in a foundry.like lava, from a volcano." "the fires got very intense down there,actually melted beams, where it was molten steelthat was being dug out."

"underground it was still so hotthat molten metal dripped downthe sides of a wall from building 6." "... your basic premise that therewas a pool of molten steel. i know of absolutely nobody,no eyewitnesses who said so, nobody who's produced it.i was on the site. i was on the steel yard. so, i don't know that that's so." "then i was at the site 2 weeks afterit happened with governor pataki, right? and they had to cease digging that day.you know why? they were finding pocketsof molten liquid metal." "in an office fire you cannot generateenough heat to melt steel.

and yet we have evidenceof molten iron in the microspheres, in the rubble pile, and the metal pouringout of the side of the tower." "about 7 minutes before its final destruction,almost an hour after the plane hit, molten metal was seen coming out ofthe north-east corner near the 80th floor." what was going on here?!these guys at nist are the official version. office and jet fuel fires can reachabout 1600 â°f under ideal conditions, but nist said that the fires burned at 1800 â°f, which they claim was just enoughto weaken and bend the steel, which led to complete failureof each building’s infrastructure.

but that still leaves us more thana thousand degrees short of molten metal, which was found all over ground zero. they denied that molten metal existed. and they denied that witnessesheard secondary explosions going off. even the nist computer animationof building 7’s collapse is inaccurate, showing the outer structural walls crumpling in,instead of coming straight down. "the nist report on which popular mechanicsand much of the press have relied is not a scientific report.it is a political document." "we need to have an investigationof nist themselves.

i believe that the reportsthat came out are not true." "so the fact that nist says that,is absolutely... in my opinion, it's criminal." nist wasn’t looking for the truth.they were trying to hide it. but why? were they asked to falsify their findings? i didn’t think they came upwith this on their own. when i see john gross fidget and blushas he states there was no molten metal, i see a man that is doing what many of usdo when we don’t tell the truth. it’s basic human nature. my feelings at the time were like the momentyou catch your significant other in a lie.

maybe there’s an explanation, but your heartis racing until you get some answers. and if something like that’sever happened to you, you may understand needing to know morebut not wanting to know more, if that makes sense. was there more evidence of acontrolled demolition besides explosions? and where did the molten metal come from? i needed more before i couldget my head around this. i took a deeper look intoall the buildings, the airplane strikes, and the possibility of planted explosives ...

mostly, i was looking for somethingto explain away this growing pile of problems. i was looking for answersthat could reduce my growing anxiety. instead, i would fall furtherdown the rabbit hole. by now, betsy was about to give birth. the idea of putting the business offfor a week had turned into a few months. and i couldn’t help from talkingabout my findings all the time even though betsy asked me to tone it down. she needed more from me as a husband and father and i needed more from her to preserve my sanity.

then my dad died. and 8 days later,my son was born. i was all over the place. this prompted my first break. i was in a very strange place,grieving my dad and celebrating my son, while digesting this new informationthat no one wanted to discuss. what i’d been working onwas no secret to my whole family. and everyone seemed pretty relieved when it lookedlike i was re-entering my normal life. i was enjoying the family,and starting to talk about business again, which made betsy happy. and i wasn’t talking about 9/11 anymore,which made betsy even happier.

just when things were getting back to normal, i started getting a feeling,an urge to get back into it. it kept growingand i couldn’t explain why i had it. i tried to ignore it, but i couldn’t. like an addict that fell off the wagon,i was back at it like i’d never left. i still wasn’t certainwhat brought down building 7, but i was pretty sure it wasn’t fire. and it certainly wasn’t an airplanebecause it wasn't hit by one. maybe a look at the twin towerscould shed some light on this.

"most skyscrapers are builton steel or concrete frames which is a grid of columns and beamsthat goes all the way through the building. the world trade center was different.it was what engineers call a tube structure. it was a very very strong mesh of steel." "there's a large central rectanglein each of the towers that contained 47 columns and these columns basically werethe primary structural support of the building." "these 47 or 48 columns are essentiallythe super-structure of a battleship. they are essentially a suspension bridge.there's no way that burning kerosene

can ever effect these, in the leastif it's only because of the radiator ..." the miniscule possibility that fire somehowbrought all three building down was gone. my only hope was that airplanes could havedestabilized the buildings somehow. it did not explain building 7, but i was trying to give the official versionevery possible chance to be right. let's look at the best documented impact that day. at 9:03 am united flight 175 hit the south tower. the majority of the jet fuel burned offin the initial explosion, but maybe there was an explanationfor the collapse in the plane impacts themselves.

the first interview i came acrosswas [with] frank demartini, the construction managerof the world trade center. "the building was designed to havea fully loaded 707 crash into it. that was the largest plane at the time. the building probably could sustainmultiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito nettingon your screen door. the jet plane is just a pencilpuncturing that screen netting. it really does nothing to the screen netting." "if the largest aircraft flying today,at least commercially,

the 747, fully loaded,is on the order of 300 tons. so if you think about a 300 ton elementcrashing into a building that's been designed to carry 13,000 tons, you can see that an aircraft crashing intothe wtc would probably not do anything ..." "we designed the buildingsto take the impact of the boeing 707 hitting the building at any location." "but the plane had already hit and what i noticed was that the lightswere still on in the lobby. that led me to believe that the planenever got to the core columns.

because the feeds for all these transformersfeeding all the light and power in the towers were adjacent to the core columns." "those aircrafts and those fires could not causethose buildings to come down in that way." the idea that airplanes could have destabilizedthe buildings never made much sense to me. the twin towers were like a solid iron rodcoming out of the ground supported by anothersteel building surrounding it. let’s use another metaphorto clarify what i mean. let’s assume a stop signis like one of the towers. the post is the core and the thin shieldof the sign is the trade center’s outer mesh.

if you shot a bullet through the stop sign, the bullet would go through the outer shelland the inner steel core that holds it up. is the structure weakened after the event? is it possible for the sign to implodein on itself, partially turning to dust? does it matter if it was a flaming bulletthat exploded on impact? could the sign ever collapse in on itself? the plane impact still can’t explainthe near free fall speed of all three collapses, but i had to look. so if it wasn’t fireand it wasn’t airplanes then it wasn’t natural. maybe i needed to look for thingsthat can make something like this happen,

and holding off on the “who” and “why” for now.one step at a time. "and it's my expert opinion, as a demolition experti was trained by the best the us government has. i served 3 years in underwater demolition team 12. two years i was attached to seal team 1. and when i look at the buildings and how they fall and the way they fell?they could not have come downwithout being assisted in some manner." "the only way that a buildingcan accelerate as it collapses is by having pre-engineered, precisely timed and precisely placed explosives,in other words: controlled demolition."

"the collapse of the buildingwas caused by controlled demolition." "in fact the evidence shows very strongly that there were explosives usedin the way the buildings came down ..." "we started running. floor by floorit started popping out." "it was as if they had detonated ... planned to take down a building.boom, boom, boom … "explosives are used to demolish buildingslike this in just seconds. okay, so it's a controlled demolition.what's the problem with that? let's just think about this:controlled demolitions

cannot be engineered and rigged in a day, it takes months, and therefore, this eventmust have been planned in advance." controlled demolition is used to bring unwantedbuildings neatly down into their own footprint. it is part science and part art. through the placement and synchronizationof many different types of explosives, demolition companies can control howand when any building falls. some are brought down (or “pulled”)in a plain-jane fashion and others as a pyrotechnic showfor an active audience.

there are many more, but let’s lookat 8 typical signs of a controlled demolition. we’ve already covered a few of them. we know the buildings fell at near free fall speedand the collapses were symmetrical. anyone can see that with the naked eye. we already established people heard explosions,but it was confusing to me and of course you are going to hearloud noises as a building collapses. this needed further investigation. by now, i was only going to trust my own eyeswhen it came to researching 9/11. i think it is too important an event to letsomeone else tell you what to believe about it,

but i am getting ahead of myself. there are 118 documentedtestimonies of explosions heard from firemen and otherfirst responders alone, which took a court order to be released. and that doesn’t include the maintenanceemployees or regular tower workers. after analyzing locations and time stamps,i broke explosions into 3 categories. 1. impact-synchronized boomswere explosions seemingly timed with the plane strikes in the secondsbefore and after the collisions. 2. pre-collapse pops were explosionsheard all over the buildings

from the time of the first plane impactuntil building 7 fell. 3. the final booms & crackleare the main body of explosives, which are detonated over the span of a few seconds,leading up to and through the collapse. it seems that explosives went off in differentparts of the trade center when each plane hit. william rodriguez, a 20-year maintenanceemployee of the trade center, who was decorated for saving many people that day,was in the building when the first plane hit. let’s hear what he and a few others had to say about a sub-terranian explosioncoinciding with the first plane hit. "there was a huge explosionthat came from under my feet,

meaning that it came from the sublevelsbetween b2 and b3. and again there was a huge explosionat the top of the building. you could hear the difference from the bottomand all the way through the top." "they were having coffee in the world trade centerwhen the first plane struck." "and all of a sudden it sounded like,i don't know where the subway is, but it sounded like a subway collision, a bomb." "i was standing in the tunnel when it blew.""the subway tunnel?" "yeah" "yes, i was right there,i was down in the basement, i came down, all of a suddenthe elevator blew up. smoke.

i dragged the guy out. his skin was hanging off,and i dragged him out and i helped him out ..." what that man is describingsounds like an explosion. not jet fuel dripping down elevator shaftsas stated in the official version. why do so many people hearan explosion below ground? a collision above might crackor break some windows but i didn’t understand howthat could tear up the lobby, especially when you considerthe base of the building would havefelt the least amount of vibration as the shock wave was absorbedby the 95 floors above it. remember these images are frombefore the second plane strike

meaning these images were recordedbetween 8:46 and 9:03 am. the only thing that had happened so faris a plane impact around the 95th floorof this building. "right away the guyfrom the port authority told them the damage was somewhere above the 78th floor. but all you had to do was look around. it was obvious something hadhappened right there, in the lobby." fdny fireman john schroederwhose engine company ten is across the street fromthe trade center complex arrived at the first tower hit, the north tower,within 10 minutes of the impact.

"we came down ... it looked likea bomb went off in the lobby. you know, it wasn'tfrom the jet fuel, no way!" "the ladies that are with mewere in the world trade center in the first building,and escaped through the lobby, where they report they believethere was a bomb in the lobby." "the bomb hit the lobby first, and a coupleof seconds then the first plane hit." "i know people that got killed in the basement,i know people that got broken legs in the basement. people got reconstructive surgery becausethe walls hit them in the face." "at the time i was actually in the subwayheading towards the wtc

right around franklin streetand after the first explosion the subway station stared to fill with smoke.the subway cars started to fill with smoke and the subways actually stopped." with so many people talking aboutthe explosions at street level, it would make sense that early reportshad the fbi and others looking into bombs at the base of the buildings. "apparently, what appears to happen is thatat the same time the two planes hit the building that the fbi most likely thinks that therewas a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings whichalso exploded at the same time ..."

"... reason to believe thatone of the explosions at the wtc may have been caused by a vanthat was parked in the building that may have had sometype of explosive device in it." "i spoke to the chief of safety for the nyfd he received word of a possibilityof a secondary device that is another bomb going off.there was another explosion which took place according to his theory he thinksthat there were actually devicesthat were planted in the building." ginny carr was recording a businessmeeting near the trade center 8:46 am on 9/11 when we hearthe basement explosion.

nine seconds later, we can hearthe first plane hitting the north tower. "i think a bomb went off in the lobby first,then a plane hit the building. then another plane hit the other building ..." let’s discuss these pre-collapse pops. from a distance they sound like popsbut they’re actually pretty powerful. hundreds of secondary explosions were reported at various times priorto the collapse of all three buildings. in a controlled demolition,these bangs are shape-charge explosives blowing out beams before a collapse.they can be programmed to go off

hours or seconds before an implosion. these were mostly reported as“secondary explosions”by the first responders and reporters. "we heard reports of secondary explosionsafter the aircraft impact." "then somebody said that they sawan airliner going to one of those towers. then, an hour later than that, we hadthat big explosion from much much lower. i don't know on earth what caused that." "you want to call your mother or something?"[explosion] the final booms & crackle are likethe grand finale of a fireworks show. in a controlled demolition,the vast majority of the explosives

are set to go off in an ordered fashionover the span of a few seconds as the building collapses. depending on distance this can soundlike a rumble, booms or crackling. "that feeling that there was something else, that there may have been something elsethat brought those buildings down." "there was a lot of talk therein new york of another explosion prior to the collapse of the first building." "we could hear a rumblewhich was about 5 seconds long preceding the actual collapse and then a boom

when each of those towers collapsed." in this footage, which has been slowed, you can see white smoke emanating fromthe ground floor before the collapse wave arrives. it’s an unsteady camera but keep in mindwhoever recorded this was running for their life. it was like watching a stunt car explodebefore it crashes at the bottom of a cliff. in this image recently released bya freedom of information act request, a police department photographercaptured an explosion originating at the base of the south towerjust before the first tower collapsed. the explosions and shock wave before building 7’scollapse were captured in different ways.

in the end, the evidence of explosions was ignored by the organizations behind the official version, like nist, fema, popular mechanics& the 9/11 commission. my independent search continued. up next ... the kink in the roof. it’s not necessary for there to be a kinkin the roof of an imploding building, but when it does happen, it’s a pretty sureindication of a controlled demolition. the roof can only kink in when the centralsupport columns are blown out first meaning the destruction of the buildingis coming from inside it, not outside.

this is done by designso the building falls in on itself. the kink in building 7 isclearly visible to the naked eye. controlled demolitions are designedto let the top of the building fall through its inner core columns, which is typically the strongestpart of any building. watch the penthouse of building 7 sink intothe floor below it just before the collapse begins. squibs. squibs are the 6th indicator on our list. in demolition vernacular squibs refer tovisible blasts from explosive charges. often they are visible through mis-timingor malfunction in some way.

usually, they are hidden in the debris cloud. in simple terms, squibs arevisual evidence of explosives. squibs were recorded from the moment of the firstplane impact to the collapse of the last tower. for me, they went unnoticeduntil i looked at the video more closely. these stills captured squibsas the towers collapsed. the official version stated these squibswere compressed air caused by the pan caking floors, which squeezedair to the point of bursting out a window. the seal of the building was alreadybroken when the collapse began. logically, if it was compressed air,it should have found the path of least resistance

through the broken part of the building. it shouldn’t have knocked outa window here or a window there as many as 40 floors below the blast wave. "nay-sayers tend to say 'well, that's justair being blown out the windows.' it does not really work to saythat it's just air pressure. some of these are coming outat faster than 100 mph." the following clips showmultiple squibs popping out. sometimes simultaneously, sometimesdozens of floors away from each other. of all the 9/11 information i’ve come across,this may have been the easiest to spot,

and yet it provided me withone of those stark moments in which the reality of 9/11sunk in to a new level. in this clip, notice how this squib occurs before the floors above reachthe blast ejection point. not all squibs, however, were easy to spot. remember how we discussed explosionsthat were timed to go off with the plane impacts? well, this is the first plane impact. notice the dark brown smoke comingout of the top floor of the tower. this smoke is already dissipating beforethe plane strikes the building.

in this segment, the nbc camera is pointedat the north tower, the first tower hit. in a few seconds the 2nd toweris going to be hit. you’ll know when it happensbecause of the reporter’s voice and the fireball in the lowerleft corner of the screen. now keep your eye on the east faã§ade,the one of the left. notice how several tiny explosionsgo off as the second plane hits ... the other building! perhaps in an effort to masksome necessary work prior to its demolition, as i was thinking at the time.

the 7th characteristic of a planned implosionis what’s called a demolition wave. it is the path of destructionin a controlled demolition. it is a visible wave of explosionsmoving down the columns of a building just ahead of or at the speed of gravity. this array of synchronized explosives is timedto blow out floors beneath the collapse wave as the floors above reach the floors below, thus allowing a dropat approaching free fall speed. again, let’s slow down the filmfor some of these. when slowed down, you can seehow the explosions are timed to go off

floor by floor. in this clip, you can clearly seea demolition wave proceeding down a column mostly hiddenby the umbrella of the falling debris pile. look to the right of the black line. it’s a bit grainy, because of the zoom. here it is again without the black line. you can see synced explosivescutting a path down the building. the demolition wave can be hard to seewith an untrained eye because it happens so fast. i’ve tried to highlight a few moreexamples in the following clips.

notice the three squibs below. notice the smaller squibsalong the corner of the building. often buildings being demolishedwill have a mesh around them to keep projectiles from shooting away. in the case of the twin towers,there were thousands of pieces of steel jettisoned out much further than theycould have if it were a gravitational collapse. some pieces were ejected laterally over 600 feet. some of these pieces weighed several tons. listen to what a few expertshad to say on the topic.

"window mullions and things went up and out. that kind of stuff can’t happenwith just pure air pressure of floors getting sandwiched together." "large multi-ton beamswere hurled hundreds of yards laterally. gravity works vertically, not laterally." "the fragments which are coming out of the tower. are obviously being kicked outby an explosive action." "and here it is trailingwhite smoke the whole time. it really is indicativeof some kind of explosion."

i’m no physicist. but if thiswas a gravitational collapse there is no way that multi-ton beamscan land two football fields away. i’ve lived in high-rises my whole life. and i’ve dropped things off my balcony,things like shoes and computer monitors. all they do is fall straight down. even aerodynamic items like platesnever ended up across the street. in some of these clips you can see projectilesactually propelled upward, forming an arc. if this were a gravitational collapsepieces could not be shot upward. and consider the pieces we see.

the small pieces weigh a few poundsand the biggest pieces weigh several tons. in this clip, a multi-ton steel box columnhad so much lateral force that it pierced the building across the street. to give you an idea of its size,here you can see a construction worker standing at the baseof the box column being installed. if i can’t chuck a shoe more than 150 feetfrom the 50th floor of my building, how much force do you need to geta multi-ton steel girder to triple that? i could pretty much rule out a gravitationalor progressive collapse with the physical dynamicsi’d seen with my own eyes.

and i found it ironic that the only partleft standing was the base of the building. even though the whole building landed on itwas the only part of the building whose columns did not become dismembered. perhaps that says something about the difficultyin wiring the atrium of the towers. and maybe these columns at the base didwhat the rest of the building should have done and that is stay together in some way. just a personal observation i’d made at the time. of course, i’d been wonderinghow the hijackers wired the buildings. it was the only thing that still madeany sense, even if barely.

but i stopped wonderinghow the hijackers did it when i learned about what was foundin the ground zero dust ... even though the cleanup and removalof the ground zero evidencebegan within hours of the attacks not all of it was removed. many different dust samples were analyzedby scientists all over the world. and what they concluded put the final nailin the coffin of the official story for me. we touched on thermite earlier butwe are going to look into it more deeply for reasons you’ll soon understand. thermite is a chemical mixture,usually of metal oxide and aluminum powder

with several variations. it’s often used in fireworks,underwater welding, and military weapons it can also be used to cut steel beams. when thermite is detonatedit leaves traces of itself in the debris like perfectly round microscopic spheres of iron and unexploded thermite itself, both of whichwere found in the ground zero dust. the fact that explosive residue was foundin the dust did not surprise me at least not by now. i already knew in my heartit was a controlled demolition.

what rocked me was the type of thermite found. you see, it was a special typeof thermite called nanothermite. and it meant the odds that the hijackerscould have done this dropped to near zero. my belief system kept taking more hits,which we’ll discuss in a bit. for now though, let’s have the expertswalk us through the basics. "in three different samples fromthree independent researchers, the rj lee company, the usgsand dr. steven jones's work. all 3 separately found these microspheres." "as much as 6% of the wtc dust consistedof tiny, previously molten iron spheres."

"you can not get a perfectly round sphereof metal from the building tearing apart. the only way you can get that isby starting with a molten, a molten liquid. then the hydrostatic pressure will create the perfectlyround sphere as it solidifies." "so what produced all that molten iron? well it has in it the chemical evidenceof a special incendiary, which is thermite, a high-tech incendiary used to cut through steellike a hot knife through butter. these spheres have iron,aluminum, fluorine, manganese very unusual elements associatedonly with thermite.

and there's small chipsof unignited thermite as well." "in the dust we found what we characterizeas unreacted thermitic material in the shape of somevery tiny red/gray chips" "we captured the residueafter the material had been heated. the red/gray chips if we ignite them producespheres that have iron and aluminum. just like we see in the dust in abundance." "and the composition was very very similar. and that led to the conclusionof the paper which was: we got some form of thermitein these red/gray chips."

"what i can confirm also is that the red layeris thermitic, it does produce molten iron." "i've heard this argument that somehow perhaps someone seeded these samples with nanothermite." "there have been some that have argued thatthese red/gray chips could be paint of some form." "i've also heard the argument, that perhaps the falling buildingsjust generated this nanothermite. no." "the red/gray chips were not the primer paintthat was used on the wtc steel." "these chips are not naturally occurring.

they're not going to form becausesome materials fall down in a building and touch each other and get compressed together. that’s just not what this material is." "what we have foundis a modern version of thermite, which we call nanothermite,which is produced in a different way. it is not just two powders being mixed." "first of all, the iron oxide grainsare uniform and approximately 100 nm across. that's very tiny, much smaller than a human hair. the aluminum occurs in platesthat are about 40 nm across.

i have no idea how to make those. this is a high-tech material, and it's embeddedin a carbon-rich matrix with order. these red/gray materials havevery orderly sheets containing aluminum." "this is a material that ismade up of nano-sized particles that are very uniform, very symmetrical." "the aluminum appears in thin plateletsabout 40 nm thick. it is the small size of the particlesinvolved in this material that allow us to characterize it as nanothermite." "these really are sophisticated materialsand probably only developed in a laboratory."

"this is very high-tech thermite, nanothermite. it is not found in a cave in afghanistan. it's produced in very sophisticated defensedepartment contracting laboratories." "we compared our spike that we gotwith a spike from known nanothermite, which is produced at a military laboratory. their measured energy releasewith known nanothermite. was less than these red/gray chips." "what we are dealing with,i think, in the world trade center is modern military materialwhich is unknown to the general public."

"it takes steel and it creates molten steel. so it takes beams of steeland turns it in to molten steel. and it brought... everything underneath justsinks into the ground, like what you saw. and it is a special us military grade weapon." "so the military uses itfor a number of different applications." "okay? it is a military grade weapon.it is not something you could make ever." i was pretty astonished at how deepthis rabbit hole was getting, even though i still had no idea what i was in for. of course, by now, i had to acknowledgethis was a planned demolition,

unless i wanted to lie to myself. maybe you can explain squibs, but howdo you explain explosions or the molten steel? and if you explain that how do you explainthe rate of fall or thermite in the dust? i had to face facts. no matterwhat my heart wanted to believe, these buildings were wired to blow,plain and simple. but it wasn’t until understandinghow nanothermite is made and who has it, that i considered for the first time that someone other than the hijackershad to be involved, and as scary as it was to consider,it might even be homegrown.

hundreds of questions kept flooding in. why would underfunded guys on the other side ofthe world use something so exotic as nanothermite that could easily be trackedby our intelligence services? who would sell it or make it for them?why risk accessing the buildingseveryday for months? how did building 7 get detonatedat the end of the day? if you have the means and go to the troubleof getting nanothermite and wiring the building, why let the plan rest on usingbox cutters to overthrow militaryand combat trained airline pilots, along with dozens of passengers,as the official version states? heck, why bother killing yourselfin a plane crash at all,

if it wasn’t needed to take the buildings down? i had no idea what i was staring at,at least not yet, but a few puzzle pieceshad been filled in. i knew that ... the buildings were brought downby controlled demolition. military thermite was used. nist was being used to sell a lie. and someone wanted us to thinkthat planes had caused this. i kept replaying the eventin my head, over and over, assimilating each new pieceof information as i discovered it.

like a retreating army, my line in the sandabout what could have really happened kept moving further and further backand getting closer to home. but i was on a mission and i wasobsessed to find out the truth. researching late every nightwas disrupting my home life again. and my wife still didn’t seeeye to eye with me about 9/11. back then, she still believed the official version,but she hadn’t seen what i had. for a time she even thought i was losing it.for a time, i wondered it myself, because i was coming across thingsi had a hard time believing. my former dismissive,conventional-thinking-self was fading away

as my eyes continued to open,causing changes in my belief system and further destabilizing our home. it was harder than ever to drop the subject.rifts were developing in other relationships, too. i was angry - at everything and everyonefrom god to the government to anyone that didn’t want to hearor believe what i had to say. i became a bit reclusive as i dug deeper. if the building was wired, lots of peoplehad to get past security every day for a while. remember when i said i lived in high-risesmy whole life? well, i worked in them, too. and there is no way you can access buildingslike those without the building security knowing.

lots of equipment had to be brought in.authorization forms would need to be filled out. there would be drilling and poundingand dust in the ventilation ducts. whoever was coming in would needa plausible reason to be there. they would need access to the elevator shafts. they would be taking incredible risks each day, unless they had permissionto access the guts of the building. "anybody who has ever watcheda building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're goingto do this you have to get at the under-infrastructureof a building and bring it down."

"the columns could have been set upwith explosive devices during the off hour operations of the buildingby elevator company personnel." "it wouldn’t be a problem onceyou gained access to the elevator shafts." "how about an elevator modernization which we knowwas going on the 9 months prior to 9/11? there are people who notedthat the elevators were locked in turn and that there were guards placed at theselocked elevators during the modernization." "and in the case of a steel frame building, that means we load them with rdx cutting charges, which are loaded with individual delays,

sometimes as many as twoto three different delays on a given floor." "i was sick to death of the dustwhich was appearing on the window sills. it was dirty gray and very very noticeablein that week leading up to 9/11." "there were workers throughout the wtcthat had access to the hoist way which is immediately adjacent tothe core columns and beams in the building." "the fact that there were visitorslike engineers of some kind wandering around the floors,carrying tool boxes and cables and so on ..." "we're talking about several tonsof nanothermite and ordinary thermite. one would have to have access through security."

"video cameras caught trucks arrivingat the wtc from about august 23rd every night until aboutseptember 2nd, september 3rd. the trucks were arrivingat about 3 o'clock in the morning when everybody else had left the building,including the janitorial trucks. something was brought into that buildingthat would help with the detonation. there may have been work doneon the detonation before.it may have been going on for months. but whatever they needed at the very endthey came and brought in that 10 day period." "the 9/11-commission also does not tell youthat marvin bush, the president's brother, and their cousin, bert walker,were the principals of the company

that was in charge of security for wtc." the jaw-dropping coincidences kept piling up. i learned that stratasec, was a security companywhich used to be called securacom and they didn’t just handle securityfor the world trade center complex, they had contracts with dulles internationalairport, from where flight 93 departed and united airlines, accounting for mostof the security breakdowns on 9/11. and another thing. stratasec also handledsecurity for los alamos national labs, one of the only places on the planetthat can produce the nanothermite found in the ground zero dust.

the odds are pretty astonishing, that one companycan link so many vital elements of 9/11. but, more astonishing is there’sno mention of stratasec or securacom in the entire 567-page 9/11 commission report. of course, that was no surprise by now . did i forget to mention that same9/11 commission did not mention the collapse of building 7in the entire report, either? "why is there not a word about the collapseof that building in the 9/11 commission report?" "we didn't see any of the evidenceof the kind of thing you're talking about." i didn’t think this was somethingdone by terrorists any more.

nor did i think this was doneby any one man, even if a president. how does he get nanothermite? how does he get norad, the faaand our air defenses to look the other way? or get access to the interior of all 3 towers?or get 19 guys to kill themselves. or get nist and the 9/11 commissionto tank their investigations? or keep the media quiet?or keep a rival administration from exposing it? no, this seemed much bigger than even a president, and impossible for a man on the run. if someone like me, with no budget or staff,

can find something clearly wrongwith building 7’s collapse, how could an entire government commissionfail to mention it, in their report? something big and strange was coming into view, seemingly coordinated and almost invisible like a 1000 more puzzle piecesdumped out before me. i couldn’t see the bigger picture yet,but i knew there was one. and it involved powerful elements of our world. this reminded me of a quote that struck mein woodrow wilson’s book "the new freedom". he writes:

i wondered if we were talking about the same thing so i continued my research. i didn’t even need to remind myselfi was falling down the rabbit hole any more. i was now fully expecting to see the unexpected. remember the opening chapter,“the dog that didn’t bark”? it was a reference to a sherlock holmesstory called “silver blaze” in which holmes deduces the culpritmust have known the family dog because the dog didn’t barkwhile the crime was committed, as he normally would if a strangerwere on the property.

the same way the secret servicedidn’t bark by staying in the school. the same way real watchdogs likethe 9/11 commission, nistand the media didn’t bark either. lots of people including politicians,the media and emergency workers on the ground knew building 7 was goingto come down well ahead of time, as impossible an event as that was. "did you hear that? keep your eye on that building.it'll be coming down soon." "i didn't hear any creaking or any indicationthat it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded andeverybody started screaming "get away, get away". the whole time you're hearing"thum, thum, thum, thum, thum".

i think i know an explosion when i hear it." "we are on the phone with new york firedepartment lieutenant david rastuccio. can you confirm that it was justnumber 7 that just went in?" "yes sir!" "and you guys knew this was coming all day?" "we had heard reports thatthe building was unstable and that eventually it would come downon its own, or it would be taken down." "... we were in a building in which wewere trapped for about 10 - 15 minutes. and we set up headquartersat 75 barclay street which was right there with the police commissioner,the fire commissioner,the head of emergency management.

and we were operating out of there when wewere told that the wtc was going to collapse. but it was the media’s pre-knowledgeof building 7’s fall that was much more telling. several news outlets around the worldreported the collapse of building 7, long before it happened. i listened closely to these segments. considering building 7 wasn’t hit by an airplane, and no high-rise has evercollapsed because of fire, how was it that all these different news agenciesreported it before it happened? how can anyone report there has been animprobable accident before the accident happens?

"now more on the latestbuilding collapse in new york. you might have heard a few moments ago i was talkingabout the salomon brothers building collapsing. and indeed it has. apparently it isonly a few hundred yards away from where the wtc towers were." "... that one of the other buildings,building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsedor is collapsing." "that has structural damage as well.we saw a lot of glass broken out and a corner of the buildingappeared to be in distress, and there's concern that there might actuallybe another collapse of that building."

"we are getting word from new yorkright now that another building has collapsed. is that smoke coming from this third collapse? okay, that's what we're understanding,which makes sense, because it looks like the sun is going down, but hoping that enough people havecleared out of downtown manhattan so that perhaps it was not be as full as itmight be normally around 5:30 on a tuesday." "that information ... oh just take a look at that,right hand side of the screen." "it's going down right now." "there it is." "yes" "the brown building, the tall one,is number 7 world trade center.

i've heard several reportsfrom several different officers now, the media has played an important rolein shaping the official story even to this day. the idea that the buildings fellbecause of planes and fire was instilled in the public’s conscienceearly and often on 9/11. and it started before any buildings fell. "... and that perhaps they're bucklingunder the force of the collision and the hole that's resultedfrom these two planes." "my sense is that just, one,that the velocity of the plane and then the fact that they have a plane filledwith fuel hitting that building that burned ..."

"i think that structural damage you suggestedprobably led to this building coming down." "it was because the building had been weakenedduring this morning's attacks." "and then i witnessed both towers collapse.one first, and then the second. mostly due to structural failure,because the fire was just too intense." "and now we're told that there's a fire there and that building may collapse as well ..." "airplanes flying into buildings,fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief ..." metaphor time.

let’s say your local tv newsbreaks in with a report of a car accident at the corner of main & 1st avenuebecause a car blew out a tire, swerved into a tanker truck and it exploded. now, your office is at that cornerso you go out and look, but everything looks fine. you flip stations and other stationsare reporting it too, using different wire services, even. as you stare out the window wonderingwhere there’s another main & 1st avenue, a car drives into a parkedgas truck and it explodes.

have you witnessed a miracle?or a staged event? if what i was finding,were mistakes in a massive ruse, then the sheer boldness and size of it aloneis why i never saw it before. it reminded my of a quoteoften attributed to joseph goebbels, the minister of propagandafor hitler’s nazi germany, who stated that “if you tell a lie big enoughand keep repeating it, people will eventuallycome to believe it.” i found a pattern of bullying, intimidationand belittling of anyone asking valid questions, which did nothing to softenmy growing anger,

even though i had no idea to whereor to whom it was directed. "we're not buying it.""okay, you don't have to buy anything american. if you want to be a nut, you can be a nut." "anybody who thinks that 9/11was carried out by the government isn't a truther. they're idiots." "i'm merely saying it is wrong, blasphemousand sinful for you to suggest, imply or help other people to come to the conclusion that the us-government killed 3,000of its own citizens because it didn't." "how big a lunatic do you have to be to watchtwo giant airliners packed with jet fuel

slam into buildings on live tv igniting a massive inferno that burnedfor two hours and then think: "well, if you believe that was the cause ..." "these people are idiots, they are mentally ill,they shouldn't be treated with respect. it's an insult to people who are victimsof 9/11 and their families." "you know what? it wasn't an inside job.we can see the planes. the planes hit the building.it wasn't a controlled demolition. and the buildings came down.it's just beyond bizarre ..." "yeah, and you are a nut case, building 7!"

"9/11 was an inside job. oh, get a life! get a life, 9/11 was an inside job." "you're like the guyswho think that the space aliens kidnapped elvis or something like that.that's where you are." i didn’t think it was an accidentthat every question is uniformly dismissed. i couldn’t find a familiar journalist thatseriously entertained these obvious questions that anyone would have. could i really be onto somethingthat the media couldn’t see? or were they trying to keep mefrom seeing something they did?

most reasonable people would questionthe official story after seeing what we’ve seen. so i switched my focus to independentnews sources, outside the mainstream. no, they’re not well-funded, slick or glitzy. most are just regular peopleor sincere journalists trying to expose the truth about somethingin their corner of the world. one such man was bill cooper. i found him early in my 9/11-research. at the time, i couldn’t explain how he predictedwhat you’re about to hear. bill cooper spent his lifein the intelligence community.

he rose to the office of navalsecurity and intelligence, serving on the intelligence briefing team for the commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet. he held several top-secret security clearances. after the military, he developed and operated the largest civilianintelligence agency in the world. "the largest and most successful civilianintelligence gathering operation in the world. which makes me privy to an awful lotof information that none of you will ever see." in other words, he was very credible.

the following clip is from his radio program,the hour of the time, which aired on the night of june 28, 2001, 76 days before 9/11 happened. "a cnn reporter found osama bin laden took a television camera crew with him went into osama bin laden's hide-out,interviewed him, and his top leadership,his top lieutenants and colonels and generals in their hide-out. this is the cnn reporter with the camera crew.

and he came out and told everybody within 3 weeks osama bin laden is goingto attack the united states and israel. now don't you think that's kind of strange folks? you see, because the largestintelligence apparatus in the world, with the biggest budgetin the history of the world, has been looking for osama bin ladenfor years and years and years and can't find him. and whatever's going to happen that they'regoing to blame on osama bin laden don't you even believe it!

when in hell are all you peoplegoing to wake up?" all these early news reports were glaring misfires in what seemed to be an otherwisecoordinated media campaign. misfires not unlike the ones meantto coincide with the first plane impact. little mistakes that my untrained eyenever picked up before, but that i was now finding all over,spawning even more questions and fueling the early stages of whatwould become my spiritual awakening. as i continued finding evidenceleading me away from the official version, it was not surprising the main body of evidence

was being removed within hours of the attacks, cleaning up a crime scenewith no real investigation. "because what they did immediately after 9/11 was that they started removingthe steel, the debris, from tower 7 and all the towers immediately." "400 truckloads per day of materialwere taken away from the wtc site and sentto china for recycling." "there were laws violatedin the destruction of that evidence." i was starting to believe that things likethe immediate clean up were probably no accident.

and to discover what was really happening,i’d need to find the ones behind the clean up and the coordinated media and nist and fema, the federal emergency management agency, which in another huge coincidence, arrived to new york for a training exerciseon monday september 10th, the night before 9/11, which is convenient as they oversawthe clean up of ground zero. "to be honest with you,we arrived on late monday night and went into action on tuesday morning.

and not until today did we getthe full opportunity to work ..." over time, it got easier to find puzzle pieces like the following testimony by norman mineta, the secretary of transportation in 2001, who was with vice presidentdick cheney on the morning of 9/11. and like so much other important information, this interview would also be left outof the 9/11 commission report. "during the time that the airplane[was] coming in to the pentagon there was a young man who would come inand say to the vice president:

"the plane is 50 miles out.","the plane is 30 miles out." and when it got down to"the plane is 10 miles out." the young man also said to the vice president: "do the orders still stand?". and the vice president turnedand whipped his neck around and said: "of course the orders still stand.have you heard anything to the contrary?" at the time i didn't know what all that meant. "the flight you are referring to is the ..." "the flight that came into the pentagon."

the mineta testimony launchedmy investigation into the pentagon, shanksville, the hijackersand many other aspects of 9/11. and if i thought i was a long way downthe rabbit hole already, was i way wrong. my belief system would ultimately be shattered, but rebuilt to accommodate my evolving worldview. back then, however, i was onlya few months into my investigation. and i was going througha full scope of emotions and frankly, having a difficult time handling all of them: and i would go through many more.

i was still unable to reconcileall the data in front of me. i couldn’t see the bigger picture at the time. but like the wind, it can’t be seenyet we know it is there because it leaves evidence of its existence. very much like the trail of breadcrumbsi’d been researching over the last few months. but it’s not something i could understandin one sitting. it took time. coping with the flood of emotions took a while. i didn’t have anyone guiding meor anyone to talk to about it. it felt like i had no foundation.like the ground was crumbling beneath me.

the truth is hidden by several mechanisms, especially the limitsof our own pre-conceived beliefs. i’d been so ignorant and dismissive but now i wondered what elsei’d been fooled about. over the years, i came to seethat we are in a battle of information; a battle of beliefsor a spiritual battle, if you will. i also came to believe that 9/11is only one battle in a much larger war. a war i couldn’t see yet but one that i waswell on the way to discovering. this is a lot to take in and we all wake upat our own speed, if at all,

which is why i stopped after only lookingat the trade center portion of the attacks. there’s so much more to this,but it’s easier to process in smaller chunks. betsy and i woke up at different speeds. my eyes started opening pretty quickly,but it took betsy a few years, even though we talked about it all the time. it wasn’t until she watched early versionsof this movie that she began to believe me. i clearly remember the day in june of 2013 when she came voluntarilyand shared her own thoughts about her own 9/11 research,something she’d never done before.

and i knew by talking to her,that her eyes were finally opening too. it probably saved our marriage. getting past that stumbling blockopened the door for us to re-connect. if there’s a pit in your stomach,don’t be overwhelmed or scared. whatever is behind all of thishas been there for a long time, and i’m sure you’ve lived,loved and laughed in that time. and you still will. the shock will wear off. and what will be left is a much betterunderstanding of how the world works, which makes the bad guy’s jobs harder.

over time the discomfort and confusionsubsided and i went back to my life with clarity and new hope for what’s ahead. today, i am able to laugh and be happyand look forward to the future like everyone else. i have all that and i’m more awareof important things happening around me. so, if you want to forget everything you’ve seen,go back to your regular life. soon you’ll forget about all of this.our defense mechanisms work that way. but if you decide to jump down the rabbit hole, my advice is to seek your own answers. do your own research.and don’t let anyone tell you what to believe.

about anything.because until you see it for yourself, it’ll be hard to ever understandwhy it’s so important to know it exists.