Transition Whatcom

Richard McManus for Snohomish County Sheriff

WTC 7: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Another best video I have found that explains what should not have caused the WTC buildings to collapse due to office fires.

Resolution for a New Public Congressional Investigation regarding the alleged terrorist incidents on September 11, 2001

WHEREAS some 3,103 architects and engineers (,), As of 2006, more than 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, signed a statement accusing the current US presidential administration of “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends” some 320 skilled commercial of military pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth), and some 58 elected public officials are saying that scientific irrefutably evidence proves that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by explosives.

WHEREAS a 2016 study from Chapman University in California, found more than half of the American people believe the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks and Celebrities Who Are 9/11 skeptics are risking being put-down for being “conspiracy theorists” SEE here:

And WHEREAS these experts believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) committed criminal negligence (LIED) in doing their investigation and writing the final report and NIST made no recommendations to improve the steel makeup of future high rise buildings to prevent them from collapsing due to fires.

And WHEREAS David Ray Griffin, PhD lists over 100 lies included in the official 9/11 Commission report in his book, The 9/11Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,

And WHEREAS 911 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said that the FAA and NORAD did not tell the truth to the Commission, the Commission failed to bring charges against witnesses who they alleged gave false testimony, and 9/11 Commissioners former US Senators Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland called the Commission’s investigation a cover up,

And WHEREAS the group calling itself the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry has, as of the summer of 2018, petitioned with the US Attorney in Manhattan, New York to convene a Special Grand Jury (which may now being investigation 9/11, but we can not know this for sure because even the fact that a Grand Jury in the process of investigation, is classified or secret).

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED we call for a new, public Congressional investigation be convened regarding events before, during, and after the mass murder on 9/11.

Irrefutable Evidence - The 9/11 Official Story is Total BS
about 20 pages with a more detailed 120 pages send me an email at and I will reply with it attach for free. or For sale at Amazon Kindle books

9/11 Truth Seattle

Washington State Democrats for 9/11 Truth

WA State Democrats Demanding a new Congressional investigation of 9/11
WA State Democrats for a Truth and Reconciliation Tribunal


Prosecute Bush et al. for war crimes
And Pelosi is the reason Congress did not prosecute Bush et al.

We are in a war on science --- Population growth is a problem.
Changing the norm to help stop global warming

Views: 166


Replies to This Discussion

Do we ALL have a duty to insure the law is faithfully executed?

I am charging Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report with criminal negligence and lying.

The 47 floor World Trade Center building Seven (WTC7) was not hit by an airplane and fell down absolute free fall acceleration for the eight floors in the first 2.25 seconds of its descent. The crushing of one floor after another MUST have greatly slowed down the total time of the collapse. Therefore, the collapse was not due to fires in the offices. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, is should be indicted for criminal negligence and lying in the report.

The other tell-tale sign of a deliberate exploding of WTC7 is the symmetrically collapsed of the steel making up the roof of the top floor. These horizontal top steel section or roof of WTC 7 collapsed just like an expert would do a demolition into its small footprint and doing almost no damage to the two adjacent buildings that were within feet of WTC7.
Video tape proves that some eight stories of steel had to have been cut by explosive in order for the roof, fall straight down at free fall acceleration. The concrete floors within WTC7 and the Twin Towers were made with a corrugated 1.5 inch deep steel pan into which was poured four to eight inches of concrete reinforce with steel wire mess. This wire reinforcing and the steel corrugated pan should have kept most of the concrete in large pieces pancaked one upon the other in the wreckage. Therefore, there should have been large pieces of this concrete flooring in the wreckage piled. Pretty much all the concrete flooring including the steel pans was turned to dust or sand. This could only have occurred due to explosives.
NIST made unjustified assumptions and errors in their final report regarding the collapsing of the Twin Towers and WTC7. NIST lied when they claimed the floor beams sagged 42 inches. Underwriters Labs (UL) tested the floor beams using twice the normal weight on a floor and heating them for two hours at 1,000 degrees F° and the floor beams only sagged 3 inches. Therefore, NIST claim that the sagging floor beams cause the outer columns to buckle inward and break is FALSE. One of 16 perimeter columns was examined in the recovered wreckage and only three had evidence that pre-collapse steel columns reached the temperature over 480 degrees F. No evidence was found by NIST that the pre-collapse fires were hot enough to significantly affected/effected the microstructure of the steel that would have resulted in weakening of the columns. Softening of the steel column would have begun at about 1,100 degrees F. (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 236) (NIST NC Star 1, p. 90)

NIST claims that there were very big, very hot fires covering much of the north face of the 12th floor at 5:00 PM. Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. Other photographs even show that the 12th floor fire had virtually burned out by 4:00. And yet NIST now claims that fires were still going strong at 5:00 PM.

NIST stated that the Twin Towers did not pancake like several main stream news alleged. It was NIST task to find out why the Twin Towers completely collapsed to the ground, yet never before or after 9/11 has a steel high rise building completely collapse. They only assumed/discussed in their report what they think caused the top sections started to fall down. NIST did not explain how 2 or 3 inches thick steel beams were reduced to paper thin nor how sulfur molecules were found in these thinned pieces of steel. Structural steel is not made containing sulfur molecules. Nanothermite is a compound made of some amount of sulfur and when it is used to melt steel, sulfur gets mixed into the melted steel.

NIST made omissions and alterations of how the WTC7 was constructed and in so doing it could not have collapsed unless explosions done it.
NIST refused to publically disclose the data they used in their misleading computer model.

NIST said it would “risk public safety” letting to expert architects review the data on which it was based. Viewing NIST’s their computer model of the collapse anyone can see the building model does not falling symmetrically. NIST’s model starts to show the building tipping over to the side which did not happen as is seen in the video tapes of its collapse. If computer model if it had continued to depict the collapse of the building to the ground, it would have tipped over onto its side. But WTC 7 fell into the building’s footprint. NIST video is an out and out LIE!

NIST never recommended any new regulations for building steel high rise buildings stronger. The steel within the Twin Towers was made the building three to five times stronger than was necessary We can assume by not doing so, they believe the construction of the World Trade Center buildings was very damn good engineering per a cost benefit analysis of their construction.

This is the link to a video of the best engineering explanation that NIST lied.

6. For over a year, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a forensic structural engineer and chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) along with his two PhD students analyzed data from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s report about the collapse on 9/11 of World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC 7). They found errors within NIST’s analysis and also they came to the conclusion that WTC 7 did not collapsed due to fire as NIST reported.


Dr. Hulsey and his PhD students determined that NIST’s analysis, their conclusion was that WTC 7 did not collapse due to fire.

Given that it is the responsibility of NIST to make sure steel high rise buildings are safe and do not collapse in the future due to such minor fires, the NIST investigation was grossly negligent. Furthermore by asserting their false conclusion, NIST may be guilty of criminal negligence. As of December 2016, Dr. Hulsey’s and his students are still continuing to rule-out other far-out possibilities, albeit they are 100 percent sure of their scientific analysis.

Here is the URL/link where you can listen to Dr. Hulsey explanation of his research.

WE ALL have a duty to insure the law is faithfully executed.

I am charging Ted Olson with lying to the FBI and the FBI and/or DoJ with covering up this crime.
Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception

At first the FBI insisted there were 13 mobile phone calls made, but later they testified at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui their number was reduced this number to just two. And yet there were no billing records for these two alleged calls.

In 2006 the FBI presented evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (aka "the 20th hijacker"). FBI exhibit (P200054) from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone call -- it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds. There is a disagreement about his story because during the terrorism trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the FBI stated that only one phone call was made from American Airlines flight 77 (AA77).

Officially there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, with callers using either mobile phones or GTE Airfones fitted into the backs of the aircraft seats. But there are serious doubts about making cellphone calls or Airfone calls given the technology of 200. This is because calls made at an altitude of six miles up in the air (some 25,000 to 35,000 feet) and flying at some 450 to 500 mph, use a radio signal that is too weak. Furthermore flying at 500 mph would not give the cell phone’s radio signal a chance to connect with cell phone towers on the ground because it takes a second or two to connect (aka do a hand-shake). By the time, one handshake is connected/completed to a tower, the jet has flown out of radio range and the call has to go to another hand-shake process before the phone rings with or at the other person’s telephone.

According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cell phones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cell phone industry, it was a miracle that any of the calls got through from altitude. An aircraft with its metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation (aka radio frequency signals). One can make a cell phone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cell site (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.
Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: “The idea of being able to use a cell phone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal.” (AVWeb, 1999)

US Solicitor General Ted Olson (June 2001 to July 2004) and he told news agencies that his wife Barbara Olson called him and that she told him that AA77 was being hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. This is the only evidence, albeit false that the hijackers allegedly had those weapons.

And Ted said she told him that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off, Ted falsely alleged. Ted Olson also said, shortly after the first call, Barbara reached him again on the telephone and reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked. She asked him husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses.

Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. Ted Olson than says he informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off." (The 9/11 Commission Report) (

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out this lie told by Ted Olson

The FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77. A copy of the FBI’s report of their interview of Ted Olson was released per a FOIA request. See:

In 2006, an American Airlines representative, in response to a query saying, “We do not have (seatback or GTE Airfones) phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”

So my question for you is why didn’t the FBI charge Ted Olson for lying to the FBI?
Lying to a federal official can get you five years in jail.

David Ray Griffin, PhD presented extensive evidence that reported cell phone calls from the airliners from approximately ten reported cell phone calls from United 93, could not have occurred, because the cell phone technology at the time did not allow calls to be made from airliners flying at a high altitude (Flight 93 was at 34,300 to 40,700 feet when the calls were reportedly made).
Video for the Ted Olsen lie.  

WTC 7: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Another best video I have found that explains what should not have caused the WTC buildings to collapse due to office fires.

Irrefutable Evidence - The 9/11 Official Story is Total BS
about 20 pages with a more detailed 120 pages

send me an email at and I will reply with it attach for free.
or For sale at Amazon Kindle books

18 U.S.C. § 4: Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The Federal misprision of felony statute is usually only used in prosecutions against defendants who have a special duty to report a crime, such as a government official

Richard McManus for Snohomish County Sheriff


© 2020   Created by David MacLeod.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service