theguardianuk--2019-10-15--UK's robust jobs market dented amid big fall in employment

The number of people in work fell by the largest margin in four years in August as the uncertainty created by the Brexit talks weakened Britain’s previously robust labour market.  The employment figures dropped by 56,000 in the three months to the end of August from the previous quarter after a shake-out of high street retail jobs and redundancies across much of the manufacturing sector.  Unemployment increased back to 3.9% of the working population from 3.8% in the previous quarter to reflect growing signs that the jobless total is about to begin a sustained rise from its previous 40-year lows.  A recent surge in pay also came to an end in August after average weekly earnings dropped, from 4% to 3.8%. Pay including bonuses also increased at 3.8%. Annual total pay growth, adjusted for inflation, was put at 1.9%, with annual growth in regular pay estimated at 2%.  Another indication of the worsening situation could be found in the falling number of vacancies, which dropped for an eighth month in a row from the January peak of 861,000 to 813,000 in August.  Chris Williamson, chief business economist at IHS Markit said: “The disappointing numbers are not a blip but the consequence of a steady deteriorating trend seen over the course of 2019 so far. What’s more, the business surveys indicate that the job market continued to weaken in September, hinting that the rate of job losses likely accelerated.”  Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) covering the last year were more buoyant as the employment rate rose to 75.9% from 75.6%.  According to the ONS, much of the rise was down to women over 60 staying in the workforce following the new state retirement age.  The annual data covering number of people considered to be economically inactive fell 0.2 percentage points from last August to an estimated 21%, although the worsening situation in the three months to August meant it was up 0.1 percentage points on the previous quarter.  Ian Stewart, chief economist at Deloitte, said a slowdown across production and trade was filtering into the labour market.  “These numbers show that the period of remarkable resilience in jobs and earnings is coming to an end. Next year is likely to see unemployment edge higher, albeit from very low levels – the first sustained increase in nine years,” he said.  Jon Boys, labour market economist at the CIPD, the professional body for personnel managers, said: “Today’s statistics will certainly prompt more speculation that the labour market has reached its high-water mark.  “Employment numbers may be down on the last period, but it’s worth repeating that they remain just below record levels. The labour market is still in good health.”  The figures follow a report by the TUC that showed that between 2016 and 2018 pay rises were more generous among the very top earners.  It found that people in the top bracket saw their hourly pay increase by an average of 7.6% from £58.73 in 2016 to £63.18 in 2018, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) annual survey of hours and earnings. Over the same period, the real terms pay of average workers rose by just 0.1% or 2p to from £12.71 to £12.73.  In line with previous studies by the New Economics Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the TUC said that average pay in real terms, when adjusted for inflation, was still worth less in real terms than before the financial crisis.


thenewyorktimes--2019-01-04--December Jobs Report Highlights Economys Strength Despite Market Tumult

December Jobs Report Highlights Economy’s Strength Despite Market Tumult

“It’s much higher than expected,” said Julia Pollak, a labor economist at the online employment market site ZipRecruiter. “The overall picture is that there is strong job growth on Main Street and it continues to be quite robust, despite uncertainty on Wall Street.”  And the unemployment rate seems to have risen for good reasons — more people are being drawn into the job market, perhaps because of higher wages. The labor force grew by a healthy 419,000 people last month.  Over all, employers added more jobs in 2018 than they did in 2017, at a monthly average of 220,000. But last year was unique, because Congress passed a big corporate tax cut that essentially bathed a sizzling economy in lighter fluid. Optimism among consumers and businesses soared. Manufacturers and builders kept hiring despite trade tensions and a slowdown in the housing market.  “People got used to these eye-popping job-growth numbers,” said Martha Gimbel, director of research for the job-search site Indeed. Even if hiring slows in the coming months, she said, “it doesn’t mean that anything’s wrong, it just means we are heading back to normal.”  December’s figures do not account for workers furloughed during the government shutdown, which began after last month’s surveys were conducted.


thenewyorktimes--2019-11-01--‘There’s Absolutely a Problem Here’: Readers on Long Job Hunts Even in a Strong Labor Market

I’ve been a recruiter for 25 years. I’ve watched clients blindly pivot to younger candidate résumés for no viable reason. It’s a sad and unnecessary bias.  Personally, I can report that once my former boss learned I was 50, I lost my “most favorite status” and was pushed out of my former company after five years of exceptional service.  I now work for myself, which is great and daunting, but I really didn’t have a choice. Now, when I go visit clients, I scan the open office for people like me. Sadly, there aren’t any.  When I ask if ageism is part of a company’s diversity training, I get puzzled looks.  One may think that age discrimination occurs only here in the United States. Not so.  My sister, with a Ph.D, works in London. She, too, is paid less than her male peers. She mentioned to me that she was looking for another position. She said, “Who wants a wrinkly old lady?”  I was a “data processing” headhunter for 30 years through the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s and I can let you in on a little secret: age discrimination was, and still is, the only form of discrimination still allowed in these litigious times.  If you could code, it didn’t matter if you were a minority, a woman or right off the boat — there was a job for you in the burgeoning tech market.


usnews--2019-11-30--North Alabama Faces Formidable Challenges in Job Market

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — A new study finds that north Alabama could face serious challenges to find qualified workers to fill the many jobs that have flooded the region.  Deloitte analyzed the situation and its findings signal a potential crisis in the future that will require an extraordinary effort to overcome, Al.com reported.  A national recruiting effort is needed to attract people to fill the jobs, said Darin Buelow, global location strategy leader for Deloitte.  In a recent presentation to area civic leaders, Buelow said the Huntsville area must fill about 25,000 new jobs by 2023.  However, it comes at a time when Alabama is experiencing a record-low unemployment rate of 2.8%. It’s even lower in the Huntsville area at 2.1%.  “The only way to get some of those people is to get some of them to move here," Buelow said. "Sure, we can convert more of them that are in the economy now, maybe convert some of the non-workers and turn them into workers.  “But we need to also ramp up a moonshot effort to get people to be interested to move to this region,” he added.  Launch 2035 hired Deloitte to study the labor market. Launch 2035 is regional business-led initiative that has facilitated closer working relationships with the area’s elected leaders in Madison, Morgan and Limestone counties.  The study projected that 14,000 new jobs in the region will be created over the next three years, "translating to approximately 25,000 direct, indirect and induced new jobs," according to Deloitte's executive summary.  "That's going to exacerbate the supply and demand gap that the Huntsville area experiences now," Buelow said.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


vox--2019-04-05--The latest jobs report shows why its still a workers labor market

The latest jobs report shows why it’s still a workers’ labor market

Employers added a solid 196,000 new jobs to the US economy in March — slightly more than economists expected, according to the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But wage growth slowed back to a crawl.  Despite the tightening labor market, workers only got a 4-cent average hourly pay raise in March. A month earlier, wages jumped about 10 cents, the fastest they had risen since 2017.  And all the hiring in March didn’t do much to change the already super-low unemployment rate, which is still 3.8 percent.  The new data shows that the US economy remains strong even though it’s not really booming. For example, average monthly job growth in the first quarter of 2019 was about 180,000, which is lower than the 223,000 monthly average during the same period in 2018. The decrease isn’t alarming; it just suggests that the economy isn’t growing as fast as before, and that the current labor shortage is making it hard for employers to fill all the open positions.  The strong labor market is a good sign for workers. Such a low unemployment rate means that nearly every American who wants to work, and is able to, has snagged a job by now. And those who lose their jobs, or decide to leave, probably won’t have a hard time finding another position.  However, the latest jobs report once again shows little wage growth, which remains the biggest weakness in the American economy. The average US worker hasn’t seen their paycheck get much bigger since the Great Recession, which ended around 2009.  In March, private sector workers (excluding farmworkers) got an average 4-cent hourly raise, adding up to an average hourly pay of $27.70. In the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have only increased by 3.2 percent, and that doesn’t even take inflation into account.  The jobs report does point to a strong and steady economy, though, with the most new jobs created for hospital and ambulance workers, nurses, and software developers.  So even though Americans are finding jobs pretty easily, they still aren’t seeing the so-called “economic boom” reflected in their paychecks.  Slow income growth has been the most persistent problem afflicting the US economy in its recovery from the Great Recession. Wages have barely kept up with the cost of living, even as the unemployment rate dropped and the economy expanded.  March’s 4-cent average hourly wage hike suggests more of the same, despite a surprising 10-cent jump in February (At first, the labor department recorded an 11-cent increase, but revised it down by a penny).  Over the past year, the cost of food and housing have gone up, so paychecks have had to stretch further. But because of recent falling gas prices, the annual inflation rate has fallen to 1.5 percent, compared to a high of 2.4 percent in 2018 (based on the Consumer Price Index). So when you take inflation into account, workers’ wages grew about 1.9 percent within the past year. That’s much faster than they’ve been growing since the recession started in 2007, but it’s still pitiful when you compare it to the sky-high payouts corporate CEOs are getting.  Frustration over stagnant wages is also the major underlying factor behind widespread worker strikes across the country in places like California, Illinois, and Missouri. Congressional Republicans had promised that their massive corporate tax cuts would help the average worker, but the gains have been meager.  In response, voters in some states have forced businesses to give low-paid employees a raise.  In November’s midterm elections, voters in Missouri and Arkansas overwhelmingly approved ballot measures that will raise the minimum wage for nearly 1 million workers across both states. And as a result of the new laws, low-wage workers in 19 states got pay raises on January 1.  Those laws have helped boost wages so far in 2019. Next month’s jobs report will show whether a growing labor shortage will force employers to hike wages even faster — and whether that’s enough to ease frustration among workers who still struggle to pay their bills.


westernjournal--2019-02-07--Applications for US Jobless Aid Fell Signaling a Strong Job Market

The Western Journal has not reviewed this Associated Press story prior to publication. Therefore, it may contain editorial bias or may in some other way not meet our normal editorial standards. It is provided to our readers as a service from The Western Journal.  The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits dropped sharply last week, a sign that layoffs are rare and the job market is strong.  The Labor Department says weekly applications for jobless aid fell 19,000 to 234,000, a low level that indicates businesses are holding onto their employees.  The four-week average, a less volatile figure, rose to 224,750.  Businesses are hiring at a healthy pace that has surprised economists, who expected job gains would slow as the number of unemployed dwindled.  The jobless rate stood at just 4 percent last month, when employers added 304,000 jobs, the most in nearly a year.  With labor scarce, many companies are reluctant to let workers go, likely because they fear it will be hard to replace them.  In its 10th year of expansion, the economy faces an unusual number of headwinds.  But so far, employers have largely shrugged them off.  The 35-day partial government shutdown likely sliced growth in the first quarter by roughly 0.3 percentage points at an annual rate, economists say.  Other challenges loom: Slowing growth in Europe and China is weighing on U.S. exports. And an ongoing trade fight with China could also ding the U.S. economy.  Many economic reports are still delayed because of the shutdown, making it difficult to gauge the impact of these trends.  The first estimate of the economy’s growth in the final three months of last year won’t be released until the end of this month, nearly 30 days later than scheduled.  The Associated Press contributed to this report.  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2019-02-25--Bongino Blasts AOC over 52K Salary for Staffers Shes NOT Paying This Living Wage You Are

Bongino Blasts AOC over $52K Salary for Staffers: ‘She’s NOT Paying This “Living Wage”, You Are’

Democratic New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has faced some criticism for her recent tweet praising herself for the salaries being paid to those who work in her office.  “Leadership starts with our choices. That’s why I decided that no one on my staff will make less than $52k/year. It’s likely one of the highest entry-level salaries on the Hill. We pinch pennies elsewhere, but it’s worth every dime to pay a living wage,” she tweeted.  “We think that if a person is working, they should make enough to live,” said Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, according to Roll Call.  However, commentator Dan Bongino noted that it was important to remember that in government, it is not the elected officials but the people who ultimately pay salaries.  “She’s NOT paying this ‘living wage,’ YOU are. Does she really believe her own nonsense?” Bongino tweeted.  TRENDING: Kamala Harris’ Father Turns on Her: ‘We Wish To Categorically Dissociate Ourselves from This Travesty’ – Report  Because members of Congress can only spend a fixed amount overall for staffing, Ocasio-Cortez made a decision to cut at the top.  The top pay for anyone in Ocasio-Cortez’s is $80,000, Trent said. Roll Call reported that the median pay for a chief of staff is $154,634.  Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America’s political reform program, said that not every office can attract candidates using the pay scale Ocasio-Cortez is using.  “I’m sure there are a lot of people who are really excited to work for her, and who might be willing to forgo some salary for a few years just for the excitement of working for a member who is so hot right now,” he said. “But is that sustainable for the long term?”  The issue was debated Sunday on “Fox and Friends.”  Co-host Pete Hegseth said that he believed the congresswoman’s pay policy was “actually socialism and communism on display,”  Hegseth said the salary structure would mean Ocasio-Cortez’s chief staff will earn a salary below the “actual market rate.”  Hegseth wondered at the end of the show if Ocasio-Cortez would fill that gap out of her own wages.  “She makes $174,000 as a congresswoman. She should probably redistribute some of that will you share some of that money. Will you share some of that money, Miss Congresswoman, with the rest of your staff who is not making as much as you?” he asked.  “Let’s not forget where that money comes from. They are not making that money in her office,” noted commentator Katie Pavlic.  “They’re not running a business where they’re making a profit and money is coming in with revenue. That money comes from taxpayers, and given to her office, and she can move it around. If it was market-based maybe she could pay entry level staffers $52,000 a year given the market value of those positions in the private sector,” she said.  We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


breitbart--2019-09-25--Hunter Bidens 83K per Month Burisma Salary Raises Questions About Role

Hunter Biden's $83K per Month Burisma Salary Raises Questions About Role

The younger Biden, who has a history of getting rich from entities tied to his father, is at the center of controversy after President Donald Trump suggested the Ukrainian government look into his business dealings in the country. Although the former vice president has attempted to paint the issue as an abuse of power on Trump’s part, many have noted the unanswered questions surrounding his son’s tenure at Burisma points to serious conflict of interests, if not outright corruption.  The most prominent and perplexing question is how and why Hunter Biden was appointed to the company’s board of directors in the first place. As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden had no prior experience with either the energy industry or Ukraine before joining Burisma in April 2014. In fact, his background in investment banking, lobbying, and hedge fund management paled in comparison to that of current and past members of the company’s board of directors.  At the time of his appointment, ethics watchdogs highlighted the younger Biden’s lack of qualifications but were more concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest. In particular, many worried Hunter Biden’s ascension to the board of directors, a position that paid at times more than $83,000 per month, was related to his father’s position as the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine.  The poor optics not only raised flags among ethics watchdogs, but also with Hunter Biden’s own business partners. Christopher Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry and co-owner of an investment firm with Hunter Biden in 2014, rushed to play damage control with State Department officials at the time of the appointment, according to internal emails obtained by the Washington Examiner.  Adding to concerns is the fact that at the time Hunter Biden joined Burisma, the company was seen as actively courting western leaders to prevent further scrutiny of its business practices. The same month Hunter Biden was tapped for the group’s board, the government of Great Britain froze accounts belonging to Burisma founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, under suspicion of money laundering. Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian minister of natural resources, would later be accused of corruption for using his office to approve oil and gas licenses to companies under his control.  Joe Biden’s role in the entire matter has only increased suspicions of conflicting interests. As the sitting vice president, Joe Biden led the Obama administration’s response to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. In that role, he pushed billions of dollars in aid to the Ukrainian government, some of which allegedly was filtered to Burisma.  More troubling, however, is an episode that took place in 2016, when Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the country’s top prosecutor.  Officially, the former vice president has claimed his threat to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine if Shokin was not fired came from the Obama administration, which had lost confidence in the prosecutor’s abilities to root out corruption.  Unofficially, though, it was well known that Shokin was investigating both Burisma and Zlochevsky for wrongdoing. Regardless of the reason, Shokin’s successor closed the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky, allowing the oligarch to return to the country after having fled in 2014.  The appearance of impropriety on the part of the Bidens has also been underscored by the inability of father and son to get their stories straight. Last week the former vice president claimed to never have discussed his son’s business ties with Ukraine during a campaign appearance in Iowa.  “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Joe Biden angrily said, before pivoting the conversation to Trump’s alleged misuse of power.  The former vice president’s claim, though, directly contradicts his son’s on the topic. The younger Biden admitted during a series of candid interviews for a New Yorker profile published in June that he in fact had discussed his foreign business interests with his father on at least one occasion.  “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do,’” Hunter Biden told the magazine.  Since making his initial statement in Iowa, Joe Biden has reverted back to his long held position of refusing to discuss his son’s dealings publicly. The silence has left a lot of unanswered questions about Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma.  “Again the question is, what was [Hunter Biden] being paid for?” Schweizer said during a recent appearance on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight. “These entities were not giving the money away. They were paying Hunter Biden for something. He’s not selling his expertise, so what exactly was he selling? And that’s what needs to be investigated.”  The question is all the more important given Hunter Biden’s history of profiting from his father’s political connections. As Breitbart News reported, the younger Biden scored a job fresh out of law school with his father’s top campaign contributor. In 1996, Hunter Biden was hired for an undisclosed position with MBNA, which at the time was one of the nation’s largest credit card companies.  The job raised eyebrows from good government groups as MBNA employees had just donated $63,000 to Joe Biden’s reelection campaign in what appeared to be a coordinated manner to sidestep federal campaign finance regulations. Hunter Biden would continue working for MBNA in one capacity or another until the mid-2000s, while his father was writing bankruptcy legislation favored by the company.


activistpost--2019-03-15--Busted Club Of Rome Reveals Gushing Support For Green New Deal

Busted: Club Of Rome Reveals Gushing Support For Green New Deal

The venerable global elite group, The Club of Rome, has tipped its hand by gushing over the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal.  Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome was the original elite group who created crisis-mode global cooling and then global warming. They produced the infamous treatise called “The Limits to Growth” that was positioned as “A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.” Limits to Growth proposed a resource-based economic system in the likeness of Technocracy, and called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources.  When the Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski to establish a “New International Economic Order”, Club of Rome members intermingled with the Bilderberg group and members of the Commission.  The totality of the Green New Deal spectacle in America is precisely in line with the global elite’s plan to force Sustainable Development upon the entire world. In the Club’s statement below, they state “We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will.” The purpose of Green New Deal movement is specifically to develop the “political will” to implement their “solutions”.  The recent tweet that spilled the beans on Club of Rome’s support is pictured below.  The organization sponsoring these youth protests is the Sunrise Movement. Their website states,  We’re building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people. We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us – if we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our democracy.  These students may think that they are “ordinary young people” but they are completely unaware that they are being shamefully manipulated and orchestrated by the global elite to drive the world into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.  In The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, they stated:  Thus, The Club itself takes credit for coming up with the global warming mantra in order to drive global adoption of Sustainable Development. In other words, global warming was an intentional, premeditated fraud.  The full statement released by the Club or Rome in support of the above Twitter posting is reproduced below:  People always tell me that they are so hopeful that young people are going to save the world. But they are not. There is simply not enough time to wait for us to grow up and become the ones in charge” Greta Thunberg  This week, hundreds of thousands of students in multiple cities across the globe will once again follow in the brave footsteps of Greta Thunberg by staging climate demonstrations. Their call to world leaders is simple yet true: “it is time for less talk and more action on the climate”.  We deem the students’ concerns to be utterly justified and irrefutable and will continue to play our role in ensuring ambitious climate action. These courageous young leaders point to challenges for the planet and humanity which have long been recognized by the scientists, economists, business leaders and experts within the Club of Rome*. It has been 50 years since the “The Limits to Growth”, which alerted the world to the acute environmental and demographic challenges ahead. Decades of exponential growth in both population and consumption are now colliding with the limits of the Earth’s biosphere. We concur with the Extinction Rebellion and the student protesters that we cannot turn a blind eye to the dual tipping points of species extinction and climate change. Emergency action is more necessary than ever and cannot be put off any longer. We no longer have the luxury of time! We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will. Global action is lagging and is often woefully inadequate, stymied by political meandering. This is why we are calling on governments across the world to listen to the call for urgent action from young people, scientists and experts and translate these calls into concrete Climate Emergency Plans with clear targets and time lines. To avoid the worst outcomes, global carbon emissions must be cut by half by 2030 and to zero by 2050. For the wealthier nations, this increases to around 80% by 2030, with full de-carbonisation less than a decade later. This is an unprecedented task, requiring a reduction rate of at least 7% annually; no country has to date achieved more than 1.5%. The only possible response is emergency action that will transform human social, economic and financial systems. Yet we also believe that the existential threat from climate change, if heeded now, offers the possibility for a societal renaissance of unprecedented proportions. This is the vision we seek to promote – a vision of the future, which ensures well-being for the many and harmony between humanity and the planetary boundaries that protect us. A vision which speaks to the calls from young people marching on the streets in towns and cities across the world. Engaged citizens of all ages demanding action by their politicians on climate change is of paramount importance, to hold us all accountable for delivering on our climate goals and ensuring that we seize this opportunity to sustainably transform our economies. Let us find the vision, the leadership and the creativity to collaborate in developing constructive solutions for a decent future for present and succeeding generations. We have the capabilities: we must now find the will and listen to the enlightened youth who have taken time away from their studies to march on the streets to be heard. You can read more from Patrick Wood at his site Technocracy News and Trends, where this article first appeared.

disaster, accident and emergency incident


activistpost--2019-09-11--The Official 911 Explanation is The Greatest Coincidence Theory Ever

The Official 9/11 Explanation is The Greatest “Coincidence Theory” Ever

On September 11, 2001 I was completing my last year of training as an Anesthesiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. That morning I, like many of us, sat transfixed for hours watching the continuous television coverage of the events that were unfolding in New York and Washington D.C. I was scheduled to work the night shift. When I arrived at the hospital most of the doctors and nurses who had worked during the day were still at their posts. The hospital had instituted an emergency plan of operation, expecting a possible mass casualty situation if and when hospitals in the New York City area became overwhelmed.  It turned out that not a single injured person was brought to Philadelphia for medical attention that night. Tragically, very few in the buildings managed to escape with their lives once the buildings fell. Nearly three thousand innocent people perished in the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Twin Towers. Some of these were first-responders in uniform or street clothes who rushed towards the buildings after they were struck by planes, fully expecting to lead those inside to safety. A great many of these heroes suffered the same fate as those who were trapped inside. These courageous men and women, many of whom were police officers and firefighters, knew and accepted the dangers inherent in their commitment to public service and safety. What they did not know was that steel skyscrapers that are largely undamaged with only isolated fires could instantaneously suffer a rapid and global collapse, not just once but three times on the same day. It is understandable that they were caught off guard because such an event has never happened before or since.  Two thousand, seven hundred and forty nine people died in the collapse of the Twin Towers. Only three hundred whole bodies were recovered. Despite a painstaking search lasting months, no others were found intact in the rubble. However human tissue, in the form of bone fragments measuring less than a centimeter were found upon neighboring rooftops hundreds of feet way. One victim’s body, we had learned months later, was broken into over 200 separate pieces: NY Times: Medical Examiner’s challenge  Our bodies can be fragile, but is it reasonable that falling building material can do these things? At the time I gave it little thought. Now, after seventeen years of clinical practice where I have personally seen what happens to a human body when exposed to bullets, trucks, chainsaws, wood-chippers, falling debris, industrial presses and chemical explosions, I have begun to wonder.  My life changed one evening in 2017 when my wife showed me a thirty-second video clip on YouTube. After watching it several times I felt, in the deepest of ways, that I had swallowed the “red pill”, the one offered to Neo at the beginning of the movie The Matrix. I include this often used reference here because Morpheus, before giving Neo the pill, wisely made him understand that he was only offering the truth and nothing more. With that sentiment, I offer it here :  I didn’t recognize the building but I soon learned that it was another skyscraper that fell to the ground on September 11, 2001. That was building 7, a 47-story steel structured building in the World Trade Center complex. I only became aware of its destruction sixteen years after 9/11. I have since learned that most Americans still do not know that three buildings, not two, were destroyed in Manhattan that day. What was initially puzzling to me was not only the manner in which Building 7 fell but that it was not hit by a plane. The official explanation states that Building 7 came down, in under seven seconds, from the failure of just one of eighty columns on the twelfth floor. It didn’t seem possible that a steel structure could collapse that quickly, completely and symmetrically from the failure of a single column. On the other hand, it seemed just as improbable that the official explanation could be so wrong. Wasn’t it all explained in the 9/11 Commission Report? Wasn’t there something on public TV that proved the official explanation? What was initially puzzling very quickly became deeply disturbing.  These words are offered to those who have some curiosity about why a growing number of people continue to maintain that the destruction of the three skyscrapers in the World Trade Center in NY on September 11, 2001 were due to controlled demolition events and not just plane collisions and office fires.  Much has been written about this. Most of what appears in print or on digital sources has not been written by structural engineers or architects but by journalists or non-professional citizens who have endeavored, to the best of their ability, to present what “others” have discovered. Sadly, as is the case with any potentially divisive issue, there are those who seek to spread unverified data and use dubious lines of reasoning to solidify a biased position. This is happening on both sides of the argument, and it is having serious repercussions. How can anyone know who or what to believe these days? The growing inaccessibility of the truth is extinguishing our collective curiosity and in its place is growing a sense of resignation when it comes to knowing such things as “facts”. When it is unclear which way to proceed, it is only natural to make assumptions and take the path of least resistance and go along with what we are being told.  I have a background in Electrical Engineering and Medicine. I do not claim to be an authority on how buildings are to be constructed or razed. However I do believe that anyone with an open mind and some basic understanding of how the physical world reliably reacts to common forces of nature can easily discern fact from fiction and likelihood from implausibility. I have spoken to scores of people from all walks of life about this topic. I have found that between an open mind and a basic understanding of the physical world, the former is more important and, it seems, more rare.  At this time we live in a society where people who either believe (or even consider believing) in an alternative theory of events are labeled “conspiracy theorists”. This is unfortunate because it carries the connotation that if a person believes that the official narrative of ANY event is inaccurate or falsified then they, by definition, believe that ALL official narratives are inaccurate and designed for a hidden, ulterior motive. Because some “conspiracy theories” are particularly absurd and in some cases offensive, credibility is quickly lost among those who hear of an alternative explanation, even if the explanation is cogent, dispassionate and supported by scientific consensus. This is very dangerous. By heaping all “conspiracy theories” into the same pile it is very easy to miss the signal in the noise.  In order to approach the vast topic that is 9/11 it is best to first take a moment to acknowledge that everyone has biases. Biases are prejudgements that arise from putting the cart in front of the horse. In other words, if a piece of evidence is offered, it will often not be considered objectively if its veracity implies something highly improbable. After all, how is a reasonable person supposed to accept something that leads to an unreasonable conclusion? This is how bias arises in a quick but untrained mind. In order to avoid this misstep it is imperative to first establish what is unreasonable and what is impossible.  The purpose of this piece is not to dictate what is impossible, nor is it to explain what other people (“experts”) claim to be impossible. The purpose is to accurately describe what is required of the conventional explanation of the events of 9/11 in order for it to be true. What may seem impossible to one person may be possible to another. Ultimately, we make our own choices about what we believe is possible. All the pictures and video footage from space will not be able to convince “flat-earthers” that we live on a planet that is spherical because the idea that the ground they walk on is not flat would be impossible from their point of view. To them, it is more likely that the evidence has been forged. If a person cannot entertain the possibility that they may be wrong there is no room for their view to evolve.  Those who maintain that the World Trade Center Buildings 1 (the North Tower), 2 (the South Tower) and 7 (the 47-story skyscraper one hundred yards from the North Tower) were demolished from explosive demolition events (as well as planes with regard to the North and South Tower) had to first acknowledge that the likelihood of this possibility was extremely small, but not impossible. The implications of such a theory are disturbing and far-reaching. It would imply that the event had been planned, months or possibly years in advance by individuals that had access not only to advanced explosives but to the buildings themselves. It would also imply that there were far more than 19 terrorists involved. The most disturbing implication is that news sources that we rely upon have been grossly inaccurate in reporting the facts or were complicit in hiding a horrible lie. This possibility would shake the very foundation of our idea of freedom. Before dismissing this possibility immediately it is worthwhile to weigh what is being risked by considering it objectively and what is at risk by not. I did. This is why I did not dismiss it at the outset. This also why I found it absolutely necessary to trust no one other than myself and why I personally believe others should too.  We who believe that explosives were used on 9/11 are very aware that many regard our position not only as flippant but destructive, unpatriotic and disrespectful of those who suffered or lost their lives from the aftermath of this event. I am able to understand that. If you feel that way are you able to understand why a person who is completely convinced that the established position is wrong is doing the most patriotic thing they can by trying to respectfully explain their position? Both sides are fighting to preserve our freedom and honor those that lost far more than we, yet having a fair and open exchange of ideas is nearly impossible these days. I and many who share my view are endeavoring to change this.  At the outset of my research into these events I acknowledged that the possibility of this version of events was extremely unlikely but not impossible. If you believe that this scenario is impossible at the outset I suggest that you read no further. On the other hand, if you are able to regard it as an extremely unlikely yet possible scenario, I invite you to read on and make up your own mind.  Many claims have been made about what did and did not happen that day. There is a considerable amount of eyewitness testimony from citizens and first-responders that directly challenge the official narrative. There are also independent organizations of pilots, firefighters, architects and structural engineers that publicly state that the official narrative is inaccurate or inconsistent with the laws of nature. If you are aware of these organizations you may find them to be believable and trustworthy. But why should you? Because I cannot absolutely verify that these organizations and witnesses are truthful or knowledgeable I will exclude their opinions and only rely on information that has appeared on mainstream media or in the “official” explanation of the events of that day, the 9/11 Commission Report and the extensive supporting technical discussion provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  Before we explore any inconsistencies of the official explanation it is important to clarify what the “official” explanation states. The 9/11 Commission was organized by the Bush Administration in response to the pressure placed upon it by the families of the 9/11 victims and the concerned public to explain why and how the buildings came down. The 9/11 events also represented the three biggest structural failures in modern history. Because this also directly impacts public safety, the 9/11 Commission tasked the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the Department of Commerce, to perform a technical investigation into the cause and mechanism of the failures. NIST is a body of engineers, scientists and applied mathematicians that are responsible for establishing and enforcing standards for industry in the interest of public safety. NIST was responsible for explaining why and how the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed on September 11, 2001. It is their report which stands as the “official” explanation that I will be examining.  Few have actually read the thousands of pages of the body of the report and the numerous technical attachments provided by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Most people believe that NIST explains how those three buildings came down. It does not. Instead it attempts to explain how those three buildings could have come down from plane strikes and (or in the case of Bldg 7, only) office fires. This may seem like a minor technicality but it is in fact a major oversight. The investigation presupposes that the planes and/or fires were the only cause and disregards the possibility of other causes. Every possibility was not considered. In fact, only one was.  Prior to September 11, 2001 a steel-framed building has never collapsed from any event except a planned demolition. Why didn’t the official explanation explore this possibility as well? For some people this may seem like an inflammatory attack on the official report. After all, millions of people watched the planes hit the buildings on TV. Why should any other explanation be entertained? To a scientist, or any organization interested in due diligence (e.g. NIST), it is grossly negligent to not explore all conceivable possibilities before arriving at any conclusion. Even an eleventh grade chemistry student must address other possibilities that may explain the results of their experiment in their lab report.  Putting all geopolitical ideology aside, we must agree that a diligent, scientific approach to understanding the structural failures of these massive buildings is required for the interest of public safety alone. On 9/11 our world suffered the three biggest structural failures in the history of modern skyscraper design and yet only one hypothesis was ever considered.  There are two ways to disprove NIST’s hypothesis. One way is to prove an alternative one is absolutely true. I believe that the alternative explanation, controlled demolition, has been proven, but ultimately it requires that some faith be placed in the opinion or findings of someone else. For this reason I exclude any discussion of it here.  The other way to disprove the official explanation is to find any assumptions they made to prove their version of events and demonstrate these assumptions to be false. Recall that NIST did not explain how and why the buildings fell, they attempted to explain how the Twin Towers might have fallen from plane strikes and office fires. Is there anything required of their explanation that is impossible?  Each of the Twin Towers was 110 stories, about 1300 feet tall. At the end of the collapse of each one there was a pile of rubble and steel on the ground that was on average 1-2 stories tall. In other words, the pile of debris from a 110-story building made from hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete, its contents of office furniture, electrical generators, HVAC components and plumbing was reduced to a pile 2% of its height. Proportionally, if a ten-story building falling upon itself did the same thing it would leave a pile about 2 feet high. The question is, what happened to all the building material and its contents? George Pataki, then Governor of NY was struggling with the same question soon after he visited Ground Zero a few days after 9/11. Here he is on CNN:  The Governor was mystified at the absence of concrete at the base of the building. He plainly states that lower Manhattan was covered with 1-3 inches of pulverized concrete dust. There were hardly any blocks of concrete to be found. We can understand how any structure can fall; even a steel structure can be brought down if key components of its structural integrity were compromised. The building would presumably lean to one side or another and come crashing down upon adjoining buildings leaving enormous piles of twisted girders and material everywhere. That is not what happened to the Twin Towers. They fell straight down leaving relatively little material at their base.  Imagine a wrecking ball knocking a building apart. Swinging a wrecking ball back and forth until a building is leveled takes a lot of energy. How much energy would be required to not just knock the Twin Towers down but to crush all the concrete in the buildings to dust? NIST’s explanation proposes that no added energy was needed to bring the buildings down and pulverize the concrete and dismember its steel. They posit that gravity alone caused each twin tower not just to fall but to crush itself. We can all imagine a building falling down, but crushing itself entirely? It would be impossible to construct a building that could pulverize all of its concrete and rip apart all of its steel from its own weight. How could such a structure stand to begin with?  The Twin Towers had been standing for thirty years. Of course something could knock them over, but why would we accept that on that particular day they were heavy enough to pulverize the very concrete they were made of into billowing clouds of dust that spread over lower Manhattan? If you are not careful your mind will rationalize that this could indeed happen because the buildings were “extremely heavy”. NIST in fact refers to “the enormous weight” of the top portions of the buildings crushing the bottom portions through a collapse sequence that was “inevitable” once the supporting columns and lateral trusses were weakened. NIST, however, suspiciously omits any discussion of the behavior of the building during the collapse in their discussion.  The top portions of the building were indeed “heavy” but heavy compared to what? By suggesting that their weight was enough to crush the bottom portions of the building within a few seconds how then can one explain why the building could stand in the first place? The vast majority of the steel skeleton of the building was undamaged from the plane strikes. Why would it break apart suddenly and uniformly from a weight it was designed to hold indefinitely?  Consider a different situation. Imagine a very tall stack of bricks. There is a limit to how many bricks can be stacked one atop another because at some point the weight on the bottom brick will be enough to crush it. In engineering terms, the compressive strength of the brick on the bottom will be exceeded if the stack is too tall. Let us say that the bricks are stacked as high as they possibly could be without crushing the bottom brick. We then strike the stack near its top hard enough to damage some of the bricks or even displace them out of the stack. We can all imagine the bricks ending up in a pile on the ground. Why would we predict that they would all end up crushed into a pile of dust? If the bottom brick was able to withstand all of the weight upon it before we destabilized the stack, why would the entire stack, including the ones at the top, be pulverized by its own weight? That would be impossible.  NIST does not address this conundrum directly but simply states that it must be possible because that is what we “observed”. This is a reasonable conclusion only if no other explanations are entertained. In fact, even if we choose to ignore other possible mechanisms of collapse this theory requires another impossibility to work. In order for the top portion of the building to crush the lower it must be stronger than the lower portion.  Take a simpler example involving bricks again. Let us say that you needed to crush a single brick into dust. The only tool that you have available is a pickaxe. Would it work? Maybe. But what if the pickaxe itself was made of brick too? Every time you struck the brick hard enough to make it crumble the axe would necessarily break apart as well. In physics this is described by Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which dictates that objects acting upon each other must be subject to equal and opposite forces from each other. By proposing that the upper portion of the building (approximately 14 floors in the North Tower for example) could completely crush the lower portion (96 floors) while remaining intact we are introducing another impossibility. The upper and lower portions of the building were made of the same building materials! In fact, the upper portions of the building were lighter and less sturdy than the lower portions because they were designed to hold up less weight. If the upper portion was in fact crushing the lower portion why isn’t it getting crushed itself? Newton’s Third Law dictates that whatever force the upper portion is imparting upon the lower must be imparted to the upper portion as well. Getting the top to drive itself through a more heavily designed structure by dismembering and pulverizing it on its way down while remaining intact itself is impossible.  Calculations have been made about how much energy it would take to pulverize all of the concrete in the buildings and it turns out that it is more than twice as much as the gravitational potential energy of the standing building. In other words, even if all the energy of the falling building was converted into crushing the concrete and dismembering its steel frame there would still be a large deficit of energy. For the purposes of this discussion, forget about the calculations. I have seen them and believe them to be accurate but why should you agree with me? Let us say that the weight of the building could pulverize itself. That is already impossible as was mentioned above. But, if we suspend rationality and continue with NIST’s logic yet another impossibility arises.  If the concrete is being pulverized, energy is being expended. The only source of energy in the official explanation is the kinetic energy of the upper part of the buildings. Kinetic energy is the energy possessed by a body in motion, in this case, the upper part of the building which was put in motion by gravity. If the kinetic energy is being used to pulverize the concrete, the fall of the building should have been slowed. Both Twin Towers fell at approximately 6.3 meters per second squared, or approximately two-thirds the acceleration of gravity. If that doesn’t make sense to you, look at any collapse video. The top of the building is accelerating towards the ground at more than 64% of free-fall. If you were to have jumped off the top of the tower as it began to fall you would have hit the ground just two seconds before the top of the building did. You would have barely beaten hundreds of thousands of tons of reinforced steel and concrete designed to do one thing: remain standing while supporting the structure above it.  The towers, like all modern buildings, were built to exacting standards which demanded three to five times the strength to hold up the building. This is an extremely large safety tolerance, yet we watched them crumble to the ground under their own weight. It would have been impossible for such an over-designed structure to come down that fast through itself from nothing but gravity. Each tower took about 12 seconds to fall. On average, 9 floors per second are being destroyed.  I am not denying the buildings came down quickly. They did. We have ample, undisputed footage of both collapses. But are we observing buildings crush themselves or are we actually watching buildings fall because the very material they are supported by is being destroyed by another source of energy? Is it possible to know? It is.  The buildings are falling at rates that dictate that the concrete and steel are putting up a fraction of the resistance they were designed to provide. Yet the materials, by virtue of their dismemberment (steel frame) and pulverization (concrete) are behaving as though they are meeting extreme force. Materials do not get destroyed unless they are meeting extreme force. We must conclude that the integrity of the materials must have been or were being compromised at the time of collapse. There was not any “crushing” going on. We have been in fact watching buildings falling because the very materials holding them up are being synchronously pulverized and ripped apart by a source of energy not acknowledged by NIST but clearly present. You cannot “see” energy, you can only infer its existence by the behavior of the system you are examining. The behavior of the buildings as they fell prove that there was another massive source of energy at work. Collapses with the rapidity that we witnessed, leaving only pulverized concrete and dismembered steel, would have been impossible from gravity alone.  It took three months to put the fires out at the World Trade Center. Here is the CNN news report which documented that:  It is well reported that the FDNY flooded Ground Zero with millions of gallons of water, completely submerging the basement fires. Ground Zero was covered with water for months. Fire can only exist if an oxygen source is present. The media reported that the fires continued to burn because of heat from the friction of the fall. That is impossible. I am not suggesting the fires were not burning for three months I am only pointing out the basic truth that the only way fires can burn underwater is through a chemical reaction that has an oxygen molecule as a reactant. Heat itself does not provide oxygen for a fire to burn. There must have been an oxygen source in or on the material that was burning.  It is well documented that hundreds of four- and eight-ton steel frame members were thrown 600 feet away from each of the Twin Towers at speeds clocked by physicists of 80 mph. Gravity works in only one direction. If the only force acting on the building was straight down it is impossible for structural members to be thrown perpendicular to the force. This necessitates the presence of an explosive, or expulsive, force perpendicular to the force of gravity.  Finally, there is the problem with building 7, the building referenced earlier. It was a modern steel structured skyscraper 47 stories high that suffered isolated fires on several floors. It was not hit by a plane. Watch the collapse again:  Even today many Americans do not know that a third building was destroyed on 9/11.  It occurred about seven hours after the second twin tower was destroyed. Building 7 fell in under 7 seconds. The building fell uniformly through the path of (what should have been the) greatest resistance into its own footprint. Unlike the Twin Towers, this building fell at freefall. If you were standing on its rooftop when it started to collapse you would have hit the ground at the same time if you jumped off the building. This means that not one of the 80 columns in the building gave any resistance to the fall. Once again, if the structure put up no resistance to the fall, why did the columns get crushed? NIST took seven years to come up with their analysis of the fall of Building 7. They used computer simulations to attempt prove their theory that it was caused by the failure of a single column from isolated fires that lead to the type of collapse we witnessed. No matter how much they tweaked their model, they could not get it to fall in the way we observe in the video. Their conclusion: The entire building suffered a complete and sudden collapse from a single column (Column 79 on the 12th floor) that failed as a result of normal office fires.  An isolated column failure cannot cause a steel building to fall at free-fall acceleration – or symmetrically. That is impossible. Using their own computer model, NIST has effectively disproven their own hypothesis. If a new, four hundred foot wide, 47-story building can fall at the speed of gravity through its own supporting columns from the failure of a single column on just one floor, why do demolition teams need to painstakingly set up hundreds of explosive charges on multiple floors to demolish old buildings? NIST spent seven years trying to explain what happened and couldn’t. Why didn’t they look for another explanation after they proved themselves wrong? What exactly was their mandate?  In the previous section are listed five impossibilities that NIST would require you to believe could happen in order for their explanations of the destruction of these buildings to suffice. Perhaps I am wrong about what is possible and what isn’t. At this moment, however, I cannot accept that buildings can pulverize the concrete and dismember the steel that they are constructed from, or that gravity can throw things laterally or that fires can burn underwater without a source of oxygen or that a steel skyscraper can collapse symmetrically from isolated office fires at freefall acceleration.  If that were not enough, one must still contend with the numerous inconsistencies and incredible coincidences that the 9/11 Commission and NIST insist upon. I have chosen the following five to demonstrate.  United Airlines flight 93 was the fourth plane that was hijacked that morning. It never struck a building like the other three. It crashed into a grassy field in rural Pennsylvania. The official report states that much of the plane and its passengers vaporized on impact. I cannot say that this is impossible, I can only say that this has never happened before. Unless a plane ends up at the bottom of an ocean, plane crashes leave debris fields and passenger remains that can be analyzed. Very little was found at the site, yet this plane crashed into a field on American soil on a sunny Tuesday morning. The coroner claims that only bits and fragments of human remains were found. There was no fuselage or luggage. However, two Saudi Passports managed to escape unharmed. This is “improbable”.  This story brings up another glaring inconsistency with the official explanation. Two planes can tear through steel and concrete yet this one vaporizes when striking dirt?  The 9/11 Commission report states that over a dozen cellular phone calls were made from passengers in both of the planes that struck the Twin Towers. Time logs indicate that the calls were made while the planes were in flight. The recordings of the passengers can be heard. The passengers clearly state the planes have been hijacked. They sound distracted but calm. Several of the calls lasted more than a minute. Is it possible that the hijackers would have permitted those calls? Absolutely. It is also possible that the calls were made quietly without their knowledge. The problem with the story is that some of these calls were made on personal cellular phones while in flight. This is nearly impossible today, eighteen years later. The idea that this could have been possible in 2001 is difficult to accept. Cell phone towers are designed to detect and transmit signals laterally, not upward. Even if a connection could have been made momentarily the tower would have had to immediately hand the signal over to another station rapidly due to the speed of the plane. There were no breaks in coverage on the recordings. As of this year, 2019, I have not been able to get consistent cellular phone coverage on a plane flying at more than a few thousand feet of altitude.  What does this mean? One cannot definitively know; one can only conjecture. I only offer it as another glaring inconsistency of the official explanation. What would be the benefit of including this in the official report?  It is customary for NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command) to deploy fighter jets when an airline hijacking is in progress. No fighter pilot ever made visual contact with any of the planes that were hijacked on 9/11. There have been some explanations for this including the fact that the airliners’ transponders were turned off by the hijackers and couldn’t be tracked. What is not as generally known is that very few fighters were scrambled that morning. Most of our Air Defense system was engaged in flight exercises over the Midwest and Canada that very morning. Operation Vigilant Guardian (among others) was a live exercise involving fighter squadrons and military bases that was conducted on the morning of September 11, 2001. The terrorists happened to have picked the very morning that most of our assets were unavailable to protect even the most defended building on Earth, the Pentagon.  How are we to know that these exercises actually took place? Here we have a link to then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers (Joint Chiefs of staff Chairman) answering questions about this exercise. At approximately 7 minutes into the clip General Meyers confirms that in fact four exercises involving our air defenses were happening while the hijacked planes headed to their targets. Moreover he reveals to us that the exercises were designed to simulate hijacked planes being used as weapons to fly into buildings:  Is it possible that the terrorists knew about this opening in our air defenses? Yes. Is it possible that they just got extremely lucky with the timing? Yes. Neither of these possibilities can be deemed impossible. It is the improbability of this “coincidence” that is striking.  NIST does not explain definitively how either of the Twin Towers fell so quickly. They propose a possible explanation involving trusses weakened by jet fuel and office fires that eventually sagged and gave way allowing the concrete floors they supported to fall but more importantly causing the peripheral columns to bend inward allowing the upper sections of the building to fall upon the lower. The calculations which should describe the tensile strength of the columns and estimated weight of the building that would allow such a collapse to progress are not given. Instead NIST references a research paper that was written just 48 hours after 9/11 by an engineering professor (Zdenek P. Bažant) from Northwestern University and his graduate student. You can read their paper here: “Why did the World Trade Center collapse? A simple analysis”  In this paper the two authors propose a mechanism that they believe could explain a progressive collapse. If you choose to examine it you will find it to be a technical paper and largely uninterpretable unless you are a mechanical engineer. However, there are a few points that the curious among us will find unmistakably puzzling. First is that on page 4 the authors state:  This assumption should strike you as mysterious. The author is assuming that when the top of the building began to collapse all of the columns on the damaged floors failed completely and synchronously. Why would they make that assumption and what does it matter? It has a direct bearing on what would happen next. The authors are trying to prove their hypothesis that the top of the building had attained enough downward velocity at the beginning of the collapse sequence that a progressive collapse was inevitable. Whether or not this is true cannot be known by you or I without trusting another’s opinion, but does it make sense that every column (287 in all) would suddenly give way at precisely the same time and offer no resistance?  The other glaring inaccuracy that can be readily interpreted by the lay reader is the estimate of the weight of the upper portion of the building. The weight used in the paper:  “…mass of the upper part (of North Tower) ≈ 58·106 kg”, is exaggerated by nearly a factor of two.  But how are you or I to know what the actual weight of the upper portions of the buildings were or what the column strength actually was? I admit that we the public, cannot know without trusting another source. However shouldn’t we expect that NIST would, at the very least, demand that those crucial values be consistent with their own? They didn’t. In fact, the paper NIST references doubles the weight of the upper portion of the building and reduces the column strength by a factor of three compared to their own estimates!  In other words, if you use NIST’s own estimate of the weight and strength of the building in the model they reference, a progressive and complete collapse would be impossible. NIST did not verify this professor’s calculations but merely stated that because another party claims it to be possible it must be so. As astonishing as it seems, this is as far as NIST goes to address the incredible mystery we all witnessed when the Twin Towers unexpectedly fell to the ground.  This glaring omission was initially the source of skepticism in the scientific community. Later an article in the magazine Popular Mechanics was published to explain a possible collapse sequence. A similar explanation appeared in a documentary on NOVA. Neither the Popular Mechanics article nor the documentary reflect NIST’s official explanation. The Popular Mechanics article and the NOVA documentary both attribute the collapse to “pancaking” floors, falling one upon another. They both suggest how one floor falling upon another could hypothetically cause a chain reaction, yet neither addresses how the central and peripheral columns, the steel skeleton that held the floors and building up could have been destroyed.  These simplistic explanations also fail to explain how concrete floors can create a “pancaking” collapse while at the same time be blown out of the building in massive dust clouds. Many of us picture of a stack of floors falling upon a single floor high up in the tower, dismantling it from its supporting trusses and slowly speeding up as each successive floor adds to the momentum of the falling mass. Once the first floor goes, we have been told, the rest is history because now the falling weight is even larger.  However, it is clear from every video of the destruction of the two towers that all the concrete is blowing out in huge clouds as the top of the building is descending. We also have the physical evidence of pulverized concrete blanketing lower Manhattan. If all the material is being blown outwardly, what then is doing the crushing? These popularly cited explanations are markedly incomplete and do not actually reflect the official explanation, yet they live on in people’s minds as an adequate representation of what happened.  NIST and the research paper above explain that the collapse of each twin tower was initiated on the floors that were struck by the planes. The columns on these floors failed, they hypothesize, because the weight of the upper portion of the building exceeded their strength when the lateral trusses that connected the peripheral and central columns sagged from the heat of the office fires burning on those floors. The upper portion dropped on to the lower and the rest is history. NIST claims that the upper portion, having fell the height of a single floor had enough momentum to sequentially overcome the next 95 floors of reinforced steel and concrete. As mentioned earlier, NIST did not consider whether this was mathematically possible. It must have been, they state, because the building fell to the ground and thus, they say, the details are not relevant or within the scope of their analysis. A closer examination, for those interested, is given in the paper by Dr. Bazant.  Perhaps this seems reasonable to you, but is it scientific? It is not. Dr. Bazant’s explanation, when examined more rigorously, requires a number of highly improbable events to have occurred. First, his model requires that every single column on the floors damaged by the plane collisions failed completely, simultaneously and synchronously in order for a collapse to be initiated. Additionally, his model ignores the energy required to bend, buckle and twist the columns as the upper portion began to “fall” upon the lower. NIST, by supporting Dr. Bazant’s model, chooses to assume that these columns effectively vanished. This is the only way enough momentum from the falling sections might have been delivered to the lower sections to initiate a potential collapse. Recall as well that Bazant uses an estimated weight of the building that is twice what NIST calculates.  It is very clear from all of the footage of the towers burning before the collapse that the fires were not equally distributed across the damaged floors. There were 240 peripheral and 47 central columns in each twin tower. Does it seem reasonable that every single column on that floor would suddenly fail at precisely the same instant without offering an ounce of resistance?  The improbabilities continue to mount as the collapse progresses. In his model, the upper section of each building falls through and annihilates each floor below successively. As it does so, all 287 columns on each floor had to have failed at precisely the same instant in exactly the same way. This is the only way the buildings could have fallen straight down. This happened 80 times in a row in the South Tower and 95 times in a row in the North tower. In his model, once the upper sections of each building bulldozed their way down unaffected, they then crush themselves when they hit the ground. This is the official explanation.  Interestingly one could look at this entirely differently. Having every single support column fail simultaneously, some suggest, may actually be something common. We would know this, they say, because it happened twice on the same day (tower 2 followed by tower 1). I think it points in exactly the other direction. The fact that something that unlikely happened twice essentially assures us that some other mechanism was in play in both instances.  Much debate has taken place over the temperature of jet fuel and the melting point of steel. It is true that the melting point of steel is significantly higher than the temperature of burning jet fuel (2500 F vs 1500 F). However, supporters of the conventional story maintain that over time, the heat would have weakened the steel to the point of collapse. It is difficult to prove they are wrong. This is often central to the argument of many “debunkers”. It has been demonstrated that given enough time, steel weakens near the temperatures of burning jet fuel. However, even if the strength of the steel had been compromised, steel does not fail from heat in the way that Dr. Bazant requires. As steel gets hot and begins to approach its melting point it will begin to bend and distort gradually from the load it is bearing. It does not snap apart instantaneously like a pencil.  It is also difficult to believe that so much of the fuel would have remain ignited for so long. It is obvious that most of the fuel exploded when the plane struck the building. Huge fireballs erupted which burned a great deal of the fuel at the moment of each plane collision. NIST themselves confirm that most of the fuel erupted at impact and that the fuel that had entered the building had burned completely in the first ten minutes. Does it seem likely to conclude that those massive structures would have entirely collapsed from a ten-minute burn?  Even if much of the fuel did not ignite immediately but found its way inside the Twin Towers how hot could it have been? Video clearly demonstrates that the smoke billowing from the fires was black, indicating that they were oxygen starved (and thus cooler) for most of the time they were burning. NIST’s explanation requires the temperature around the supporting columns be at or near 1500 degrees where the plane hit in order for the steel trusses to sag and a collapse sequence to begin. If that were the case, how can we explain the unfortunate people in the building that appeared at the periphery on the very floors that were hit waving and exhorting others to help them? If it were 1500 degrees on those floors they would have been incapacitated in a few seconds. The columns on these specific floors were required at some point to catastrophically and instantaneously buckle for the collapse to be initiated. It is highly improbable that the steel was as hot as NIST states.  Perhaps these points don’t make you reconsider the official story. I cannot look away. If there were no other way to explain these impossibilities I would shrug my shoulders and go with the official explanation. The difficulty is that there is a simple alternative explanation for all of these impossibilities and inexplicable observations.  Controlled demolition involves rigging a building with charges designed to first cut the supporting columns so that other charges, when detonated, will destabilize the structure. This is precisely how steel framed buildings are demolished. If timed correctly, the building can be blown up from the top down (Twin Towers) or bottom up (Building 7). The collapse will be very fast and sudden. If it is demolished from the bottom up the building will fall at or near the acceleration of gravity (building 7). Depending upon the energy density of the explosive used, concrete will indeed be pulverized and so too can large fragments be thrown laterally.  One explosive that is being suggested as the one that could have been used is nano-thermite. Nano-thermite is a variant of a well-known chemical combination known as thermate (essentially elemental Aluminum and Iron Oxide). When heat is added to these reactants, the oxide molecule leaves the Iron and bonds with Aluminum releasing a great deal of energy in the form of heat. Within a few seconds this reaction produces temperatures that exceed 4000 degrees F, easily enough to melt and cut steel. This reaction is impervious to water because the oxygen is provided in the Iron Oxide reactant. It would explain why metal continued to burn for three months despite being doused with water continuously.  Three independent teams have confirmed the presence of nano-thermite in thin red flakes that were found in and near ground zero. How do we know that this material was really found? We cannot know, we must trust another party, yet this would explain what the conventional narrative cannot. By dismissing independent researchers that claim to have found proof of explosive material we are, by default, trusting NIST and their opinion that searching for such evidence was unnecessary. However if we accept that material was actually found we arrive at an explanation of what we are observing : a massive source of unexplained energy, lateral expulsion of materials, pulverized concrete, dismembered steel, chemical reactions that took months to complete and a coherent model of what happened that day.  The following is a video of the collapse of the North Tower, WTC 1, the first tower that was hit and the second to collapse. It is in slow motion. It is narrated by David Chandler, a professor of physics. You can choose to dismiss his narrative comments. I cannot vouch for him. He may not be an unbiased investigator but examine the details of what is in front of our eyes: Does this seem like a building collapsing under its own weight to you? If it does, how should it look like if it were instead being blown to bits from explosives? If you aren’t sure how that should look close your eyes for a moment and use your imagination and then look at the sequence again. Large building components are being thrown outwardly leaving debris in a circle 1200 feet in diameter around its base. Is this building falling down or blowing up? If this footage doesn’t bring up any questions for you I invite you to look again closely and focus on the corner of the building closest to the camera. You can easily see that this corner column with surrounding concrete is crumbling as the “wave of collapse” passes down the building. That column was undamaged from the 96th floor (where the plane hit) all the way to the base of the building. Keep your eyes on the corner column as the wave passes through it. What forces are acting upon it? There are no fires burning near that column. It was not supporting any more weight than it had been for the past 30 years. In fact, because the upper portion of the building was falling at ⅔ the rate of gravity all the columns in the lower part of the building would necessarily be holding up only ⅓ the weight they had been previously. Why then is this (and all the other columns) getting crushed? Interestingly, the NIST addressed the possibility of a controlled demolition in just one paragraph of thousands of pages of technical explanations and discussion. They decided not to investigate that possibility because, they claimed, no explosions were ever witnessed. Yet there are numerous accounts from first responders unequivocally stating that they witnessed explosions in the buildings. In fact 156 firefighters reported that they heard or witnessed explosions in the Twin Towers prior to their collapse. If you don’t believe their accounts we still have the mainstream media on that day reporting that explosions were occurring before the buildings fell: If explosions were taking place in the buildings before the collapses, they must be considered to be causative factors in their destruction. Despite the eyewitness testimony and extensive mainstream media coverage of explosions in the buildings NIST believed it was unnecessary to examine the remaining steel or the ubiquitous dust for explosive residues. Was It Negligence or Something More? Why didn’t they? Did they have some incentive to not look? If so, what could it have been? Let us say that they did decide to examine the debris for explosive material. What if they ended up finding some? Why couldn’t they simply conclude that the terrorists rigged the building? What would be the danger in that? After all it wouldn’t be the first time a terrorist organization attempted to blow up the World Trade Center with explosives. Everything would have still played out the same way, right? Not exactly. It would have led to the conclusion that security in the three buildings was so shoddy that this happened under their watch. It would have taken demolition experts months to set this up. It would be hard not to accuse the WTC security of being in cahoots with the terrorists. Suddenly things would start to point to a “conspiracy”. If evidence of explosives were found they would also have to explain why the terrorists needed to fly planes into the buildings if the buildings could have been detonated at anytime. That would be extremely difficult. This is why some refute the possibility of a controlled demolition. If terrorists rigged the buildings with explosives, why would they sacrifice themselves by flying planes into them when they could have just pushed a button? It is a compelling argument, but what assumptions are we making when using it? When we dismiss the idea of controlled demolitions because planes were flown into the buildings we are assuming that whoever orchestrated this wouldn’t care if their identity would be revealed. Terrorists wouldn’t care if planes or bombs were involved. They would only want to be given full credit for the atrocity. It would be illogical for them to fly planes into the buildings when they could have detonated the buildings at anytime. If evidence of explosives were found it would necessarily point to a conspiracy because planes were flown into the buildings too. Hijacking a plane on a given morning is one thing. Rigging explosives up and down three Manhattan skyscrapers is a feat far more involved. The plane collisions would have been immediately identified for what they really were: red herrings. Terrorists would not need both bombs and planes, only conspirators would. Once that is established, attention would come to the sheer complexity of the effort required to bring three separate buildings straight down, synchronizing the charges so that the demolition will appear to be a gravitational collapse and not simply the detonation of explosives. This kind of endeavor would require more than 19 terrorists armed with box cutters. The magnitude of the possible conspiracy would begin to emerge. The forces behind such an act would clearly wield influence beyond what we consider possible in a free society. Entertaining such a thing is uncomfortable. It is no surprise that many wish to look no further. But do the governmental agencies that are entrusted with public safety have that luxury too? Perhaps they have been unwillingly doing someone else’s bidding all along. There is no proof of any of this as reported in any mainstream media source. It is a hypothesis that would explain all the impossibilities that exist. It would also allow us to dispense with the absurd collapse sequence proposed and not require the fires to have been burning so hot. How Could This Have Been Orchestrated? Putting speculation about dark, hidden forces aside let us return to the practical aspects of how this could have been accomplished. The engineers that designed the Twin Towers insist that in order for the buildings to fall, the central columns had to have been compromised, not the peripheral columns that the planes struck. Indeed, if you closely examine the initiation of collapse in the North Tower, it is perceptible that the massive antenna on the roof begins to shift and fall simultaneously with  the rest of the building. This slow motion video captures this at approximately seven seconds from the start: The antenna is directly supported by the central columns. There is no video that captured the extent of the damage inside the tower but it is clear that the plane, which is essentially a hollow tube of aluminum and fiberglass, had to first go through concrete and reinforced steel 14 inches thick. It is possible that a plane’s fuselage can severely damage concrete and steel columns if the energy of the collision was high enough. It would be impossible, however, for the plane to remain intact after encountering the peripheral columns. Again, this is Newton’s Third Law of Motion. If the steel on the outside of the building was destroyed, so too was the plane. There would have been little left to damage the more sturdy central columns. How could anyone have accessed the central columns of the Twin Towers for months, setting up the explosives? It seems preposterous that buildings of that size could have been rigged for demolition, even if there were enough conspirators involved. How could it have been secretly arranged in buildings that house tens of thousands of employees and visitors every day? Surely somebody must have seen something. How could this have been accomplished under the public’s nose? It seems impossible. Then we have this interesting piece of information: Twin tower elevator renovation This is a cover from Elevator World, a publication about elevator technology. In the spring of 2001 they reported that all of the elevators in both Twin Towers underwent a major renovation over a period of several months. The elevator renovation has been confirmed by people who were working in the Twin Towers before 9/11. The elevator shafts are surrounded by the central columns. There is no proof that the elevator renovation in both buildings was a cover for the rigging of the central columns, but is it possible? The controlled demolition hypothesis only attempts to explain the observed physical behavior of the buildings on that day. No perpetrators can be identified. No motive can be known. If conspirators set up the demolition who then was flying the planes? Science will never be able to answer these very salient questions. On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission and NIST, the authors of the “official” explanation, do not even attempt to explain how basic laws of physics can be violated yet they were able to establish the identity of the perpetrators and what their motives were before the third building even fell to the ground. Nonetheless, it is their explanation that has continued to dominate the narrative for the last eighteen years. Rather than reflexively labeling the controlled demolition theory as a crazy idea held by “9/11 Deniers” so that it can be conveniently packaged as a “Conspiracy Theory” and dismissed on moral and intellectual grounds, it is more apt to focus on all the absurdities of the official explanation. Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel breaking apart in seconds synchronously? Fires burning in Manhattan for three months? Four massive military exercises occurring on the same morning as the attack? A fourth plane vaporizes yet a passport is found intact at the crash site? The official explanation is the greatest “Coincidence Theory” ever conceived. The most important next step is to pause and consider what has been offered here. Ultimately, each must decide what is true for themselves. Even if one chooses to instead defer to others’ opinions, that is a decision made individually. Truth is a function of how deeply and how objectively one looks. I would urge everyone to not only look for what must be true but also for their own biases. In our personal search for the truth we are well advised to examine what our motivations are. For many, the possibility that we have been misled and duped into supporting costly wars that have indelibly changed the political landscape of the planet seems too ghastly to entertain. Why look further if it leads to such conclusions? This is indeed a delicate matter and requires a certain presence of mind to look beyond knee-jerk reactions. The controlled demolition of the buildings in Manhattan on 9/11 does not dishonor the brave first responders, the innocent people who lost their lives that day or the hundreds of thousands that have died and suffered in the eighteen years since. In fact it may shed light on the possibility of a profound truth about humanity. Instead of a world where no-fly-zones and walls separate good from evil perhaps we live on a much different planet. A planet where the vast majority of its inhabitants are actually peace-loving and cooperative, but have been taught to be afraid and angry by the tiniest fraction of us who would benefit from such a climate of antimony and adversity. Is it possible that this has been the case all along? Was 9/11 actually a “glitch in the matrix” and not the proof of terror around the corner that we have been told? How many more years will pass before we are ready to acknowledge that we may have always been a peaceful people? We may never absolutely know who was ultimately responsible and why they felt it necessary to not just damage the buildings but to dismember them and spread their remains over all of lower Manhattan while sacrificing and endangering thousands of innocent lives. At this time the only blame that can be justly placed is that upon the 9/11 Commission and NIST. Their explanation violates basic laws of physics and principles of engineering. Furthermore, by refusing to examine all possible explanations they have been grossly negligent in their task as scientists and as servants of the public. The next steps forward surely must include a diligent investigation of why NIST failed so spectacularly as an entrusted agent of public safety. Although I am an Electrical Engineer and a practicing Anesthesiologist, I consider myself to be primarily an Epistemologist. In other words, I am most interested in how we, as individuals, know what we know. It doesn’t require much inquiry to see that most of us adopt narratives largely from what we have been told. Conscious Media, or the dissemination of information devoid of bias so that it may be considered openly and objectively is therefore vitally important to any society that is interested in the compassionate pursuit of truth. I offer my perspective as a physician and engineer in the hope that it potentiates Collective Evolution’s mission to responsibly explore relevant topics and events in a manner that encourages curiosity and engagement. This article was sourced from Collective Evolution. Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


aljazeera--2019-04-08--What is a no-deal Brexit and how would it affect the UK

What is a no-deal Brexit and how would it affect the UK?

London, United Kingdom - Fears that the UK will leave the European Union without a Brexit deal are back at the top of the agenda as the clocks tick towards a new deadline on April 12 - just days from now.  Despite the potential for considerable disruption, British people are being told by their government to keep calm and carry on - because contingency plans are well advanced.  Alongside the stockpiling of food and medicines, use of motorways as truck parks, and emergency planning by local councils, military chiefs have also been ordered to keep 3,500 troops on standby.  There are even undisclosed plans to declare martial law.  In the world's oldest democracy, Brexiters present this as an effort to wrest democratic control from Europe.  Cynics are not convinced, pointing to secret cabinet documents about no-deal planning - codenamed Operation Yellowhammer - that were uncovered by journalists and paint a more chaotic picture.  These warn of a "critical three-month phase" after leaving the EU and "unforeseen issues and impacts" during which even the best-made plans could be overwhelmed.  In a divided Britain, the prospect of "no deal" evokes both fear and enthusiasm - but how would it affect the country?  Brexit has already put the UK's political system under strain, opening deep divisions in the two main parties, Conservative and Labour, which a no-deal scenario could bring to a head.  Experts say Brexit has also damaged perceptions of politicians, routinely ridiculed in the popular press for their failure to agree to a reasonable solution.  Observers believe Brexit has empowered the far right, with long-term implications for Britain's democracy, while also intensifying calls for political reform - especially modernisation of the old-fashioned voting system.  A no-deal Brexit could also have damaging implications for Europe itself, further straining relations with the UK's neighbours, harming key economic partners, and potentially exacerbating populist pressures.  A no-deal Brexit would mean that there would be no "transition period" to ease the UK out of the bloc and all EU regulations would instantly cease to apply - causing disruption that some economists say could shave at least 2 percent off the gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of 2020.  The UK government would not have to pay an annual 13 billion pounds ($17bn) to the EU budget, but would also lose key subsidies such as the 3 billion pounds ($3.9bn) for farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy.  Overnight, Britain would lose the benefits of the EU's 70 international trade deals, reverting instead to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules governing how it deals with imports and exports.  EU tariffs, VAT and a ban on food of animal origin would confront British exporters with the same obstacles to trade as those facing other non-EU countries.  The prices of some imports, especially fresh vegetables and fruits, could soar by up to 10 percent in British shops and a likely fall in the value of the pound would trigger inflation.  New import controls at borders could disrupt freight traffic as trucks going to and from the EU complete customs declarations, causing bottlenecks on motorways in southern England.  Higher import prices, freight delays on both sides of the Channel - and inevitable panic buying - could exacerbate shortages.  In theory, a no-deal Brexit frees up the UK to agree trade deals with other countries - something it cannot do as an EU member - but the benefits are limited, because these take years to complete.  When it comes to financial services, EU leaders know which side their bread is buttered on - and a raft of "mini-deals" to soothe capital markets have already been agreed.  In the longer term, however, there are fears a no-deal Brexit will chill investment in the UK, hitting jobs, and that manufacturers will abandon Britain for the continent.  Some sectors could be hit hard. House prices could plummet, mobile phone roaming charges could rise, and British people will lose consumer protection for products bought in Europe.  Northern Ireland is even at risk of blackouts, because no deal would undermine the legal basis of the all-island electricity market it shares with the Irish Republic.  Opponents of a no-deal Brexit fear its impact on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Such a scenario would load pressure to enforce customs controls creating a "hard border" manned by uniformed authorities - a move that would threaten to revive old tensions.  A no-deal Brexit would cut UK access to EU criminal databases, with the counterterrorism chief of London's Metropolitan Police warning this would be "very bad" for policing.  And British people had better get used to their beloved queues - the EU would reciprocate on any UK border checks, leading to long delays at passport control.  They may even have to go through airport security twice if they transfer to a connecting flight.  A no-deal Brexit has significant implications for expatriates - the 1.3 million Britons in EU countries and 3.7 million Europeans in Britain.  British people in the EU have been advised to register as residents and they may lose access to free or discounted healthcare.  The UK has pledged to protect the rights of EU citizens and their families in Britain - but they will need to apply for "settled status", and the rules are stricter in a no-deal scenario.  British travellers will not need a visa to stay for 90 days in the Schengen area, but may need one if they stay longer.  And once there, they will notice important changes. It will be more expensive to use UK bank cards, they will have to pay for health insurance, and they may require an International Driving Permit.  Pet owners will no longer be able to use the existing "pet passports" that make it easy to take their animals abroad, and will have to visit a vet months in advance of travelling.