The writer of the article that begins below is less known as a writer than as host of the weekly “9/11 Free Fall” interviews on No Lies Radio, a Pacifica station in California, and still less known as an author of graphic novels. — MCM

–   –   –

Silver bullets: Four easily observed facts that strike the NIST reports dead in their tracks

By Andy Steele | Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

In the mythology of movies and books, the best way to kill a werewolf is with a silver bullet.

In the real world, a silver bullet’s only power is in its metaphorical meaning as something that can bring an instant stop to something else.

For over two decades, the official explanation given by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the destruction of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 has shaped the historical narrative of September 11th, held up by a government and a legacy media that simply want the controversy to die.

Yet this official explanation is so weak that there are “silver bullets” capable of bringing it to an instant stop — at least in an environment where logic and a dispassionate review of the facts overrule outraged passions and unwavering agendas.

While AE911Truth and others have built an entire body of evidence that has served to leave nothing of the NIST reports but a hollow skeleton, within that body of evidence there are key points, often overlooked, that by themselves undermine the very foundation on which the NIST reports stand.

These are points that, for those skeptical of the controlled demolition hypothesis, should at the very least justify a concession that the NIST reports are devastatingly flawed.

In this article we will examine a few of these “silver bullets” and explain why each of them conclusively refutes the story we’ve been told by our government. Though every piece of evidence we have gathered over the years is damning to the official reports, these key points swiftly and decisively demolish NIST’s account of the building failures at its foundation.

WTC 7: ‘Hey, buddy, . . . where’s the fire?’

An expression typically said to someone who is in a hurry for no apparent reason, in the case of World Trade Center Building 7 the meaning of this section’s title is quite literal: Where is the fire?

To begin, let’s examine the basic premise of NIST’s theory as to how WTC 7 came down.

According to NIST, the initiating event of WTC 7’s destruction occurred when raging fires in the northeast corner of the 12th floor heated the floor beams on the 13th floor and caused them to thermally expand, pushing a critical girder between core column 79 and exterior column 44 (girder A2001) off its seat at column 79. This then triggered a series of local failures that ultimately caused the interior of the building to fall first, followed by the complete and perfect collapse of the building’s exterior in less than seven seconds.

Though such a phenomenon of heated and thermally expanding beams had never been responsible for bringing about the complete and utter demise of a large, steel-framed high-rise before, this was the story presented to the American people after seven years of alleged research.

When an unprecedented and as before unimaginable scenario is being presented as a conclusion, a preponderance of evidence should be expected. Along with that, there’s an unsaid expectation that all observable facts have been gathered and considered by the researchers. Certainly, while some small mistakes can be brushed aside and minor observations ignored, this isn’t the case when such observations undermine the entire premise of the conclusion.

One observation that undermines the entire premise of NIST’s conclusion is this: The fires in the area where NIST claims the collapse initiated were already out at least an hour before WTC 7 went down.

Note the horizontally numbered exterior columns (42 through 54) and the vertically numbered floors (6 through 16) in the video frame above. Like a graph in a school textbook, you can trace with two fingers where exterior column 44 and the 12th floor meet, indicating the area where this initiating event allegedly . . . READ MORE . . .