Building 7 came down in an almost perfect unencumbered collapse, falling for some time in free fall. There were a few fires on the north side but many of these had burned out by 5.20 pm. After the penthouse ‘went’, there was a kink, then the skyscraper just DROPPED – dropped without resistance and intact -and piled onto its own footprint (so to speak). The building (which Larry Silverstein said was “pulled”) looked like the most expert and perfect demolition.

The engineering experts from NIST (and FEMA) claimed the collapse was due to one failing column on the 13th floor – and have the computer modelling to prove it. So, when I was alerted that one of the FEMA investigating team was now living in Melbourne, I jumped at the opportunity to meet him.

Professor Jonathan Barnett (above) agreed to meet me in a coffee shop. I found him to be surprisingly affable for a professor in engineering, and very open. I looked forward to a feisty debate on Building 7 and its collapse with a guy that is obviously smart, but the hour and a half discussion almost drove me nuts, and left with this sinking feeling: Why could this expert not see what I think a seven year old child could see? It was later that night I concluded that the investigating teams – these extraordinary experts – had gone through some kind of mind or thought manipulation.

Mind Manipulation?

As an engineering expert and fire specialist, Barnett was a (volunteer) consultant and group leader for one of the investigating teams for FEMA (and later for NIST). They were looking into the cause of the three World Trade Center building collapses. After much deliberation ‘they’ concluded that building 7 was brought down by fires.

The fires were said to expand floor beams, which pushed a girder off its seat, precipitating multiple floor failures, which left column 79 unsupported and it buckled, which then dragged floors 14 to the roof downward. Then a north to south floor failure commenced, which propagated to the west. When most of the floors had fallen, the exterior was essentially an empty shell and it collapsed straight down, at free-fall acceleration.

Barnett said several times that the group had no agenda – and that it is no conspiracy. They were “the best minds in the country” coming together to investigate causation. During our discussion, I did feel at a disadvantage by not having an engineering degree and by his catalog of technical terms – but I noticed Barnett was not up to speed with facts outside his specific scope. Never the less, he was convinced that no explosives were used. He insisted the collapse was a result of the most uniquely unusual (poor) design; that the sulfur from the drywall was the cause of the ‘furnace-like corrosion’ of the beams (see picture below and read counter to this here) and that the computer modelling proves the fire theory correct.

John Gross with a ‘corroded’ BLD 7 beam.

Barnett and I went around in circles, but he could not explain how if one column collapses – it immediately and simultaneously causes failure across every other column in this highly constructed (high security) building. He also had no explanation of why there was a variation between the modelling and reality.

I have since sent Barnett the video comparison (above) – but I think Jonathan has had enough of my questions – even though he has given 99 talks and will soon have given his 100th.

The conundrum: Barnett insists the computer modelling is absolutely correct, but even a seven year old can see the two don’t match. The model also starts in two places not one, then CRUMPLES IN as the building starts to drop. The actual building does NOT fold in. It remains perfectly symmetrical and intact.

At the end of the day, there are these options:

1. Jonathan Barnett et al are correct. The building was very poorly designed and an office fire developed at the very place of the disastrous design fault, which brought the 47-storey skyscraper down in a catastrophic and complete collapse. A world first. Conclusion: The computer modelling does not reflect this – and an immediate investigation is required into all unusual buildings across the globe. (NIST studies here)

2. Richard Gage et al are correct – and that some form of explosives or incendiaries were used. Their arguments are documented on their site ae911truth.org and I have posted their published inconsistencies with regard to NIST’s report. Conclusion: Building 7 looks like a perfect demolition; no other building has ever collapsed under this scenario, and as NIST’s computer modelling does not match reality, this provides a basis to investigate explosives.

3. Something else yet to be discovered brought Building 7 down (and as Barnett said to me, “prove to me it wasn’t Martians”). But for this article we will disregard this most improbable scenario.

But, what the hell is going on?

There were countless ‘experts’ hired to investigate causation – and they (allegedly) came to a consensus. Did they fixate on one theory – then created a model for the hypothesis? The computer model clearly does not correlate with reality, so how can these experts not see this? I thus could only come to one conclusion – that Barnett and his engineering cohorts went through a natural – or planned – THOUGHT manipulation process. I know this is an ‘bold’ proposition, but how can so many ‘experts’ not see or question the obvious.

The no-fires in Building 7 – 5pm.

Waves of Manipulation

The onslaught of Arab blame via the media began almost immediately. By the time these teams started investigating, the anti-Bin Laden myth had solidified in people’s consciousness. Initially, only a very small percentage of the population could see logic through the cracks of the mainstream media spin.

So, with regard to Building 7: The natural mental inclination of this investigating team would automatically and subconsciously be swayed to finding the causation as the Arabs – and as the building was not hit by a plane – the only other possible explanation was FIRE. And if the team was lacking an exceptionally brave, vocal and questioning mind, the group/s would be more likely to be find a solution matching their already fixed (and collective) belief. If Gage et al are correct however, then this ‘demolition’ operation required enormous planning – and I think the planners would not have left the investigation up to a ‘chance’ outcome.

It is likely then, that someone knowledgeable in mind control quickly ‘instructed‘ and ‘infected’ the thought processes of those experts so that their findings would arrive at a specific conclusion – regardless. And I believe that would have been easily done.

It is suspicious that these ‘best engineering minds’ do not interrogate the obvious: It looks like a demolition. Every live television reporter was reporting it as such. They apparently even had a demolition expert on the investigating team. But as Barnett said to me with great sincerity, “There was no need to investigate for explosives“. Why not? It is like these groups were hypnotized or mentally instructed away from the obvious – and came up with the most unlikely and complex hypothesis.

Victim of Mind Alteration?

I used to think these investigators must secretly believe one view – and project the official theory (maybe some do). But Barnett firmly believes fire as the cause, and that drywall created the furnace conditions. I am now convinced that Barnett is a VICTIM of some form of mental manipulation or thought control. It is 2014 and he cannot reconcile that the modelling does NOT match real collapse – and it doesn’t make sense when it takes just ten seconds to see there is a mismatch. Barnett was very open to meet me (and I thank him for that), but it seems he does not want to continue the debate. I think maybe his conscious believes that fires caused that anomaly, but this is challenging his subconscious.

The skeptics reading this will say: “But you could be mind manipulated to believe in a conspiracy”. The answer is simple. It looks like a demolition – so investigate for a possible demolition scenario. But the teams abandoned due diligence and never investigated for ‘explosives’. Barnett said to me “There was no need to“. It was on the white board – but they just rubbed off the obvious. This is equivalent to the LAPD looking down at a murder victim and saying: “Those look like bullet holes – but there is only a knife at the scene. Okay, as we don’t see a gun – lets work out how that sharp knife could have made these round puncture wounds”.

I therefore suggest that FEMA and NIST investigators were mind manipulated to be irrationally negligent.

It seems this mind manipulation business all a bit ‘unbelievable‘. But you only need watch some of Derren Brown, for example, to realize that almost anything is possible, and with such EASE. Brown has demonstrated that he can program an assassin; make honest people steal, and much more. In the video clip above, I have a few extracts from Derren Brown’s shows, where he: makes a Londoner instantly forget where he is going; alters a girl’s sensory reality; and even REPLACE THE MEMORY of famous UK actor Simon Pegg. Astonishing.

We know that if the mainstream media repeat a lie often enough, the majority of people become to believe it as fact. And people don’t like their belief system to be questioned. What is even more astonishing is that some people suspect something terribly wrong with the official story, but they feel safer believing in a false truth (the lie). Society (mainly as a result of the media) have been mind manipulated into feeling safer by being lied to.

Fortunately there is a growing percentage of people that don’t believe the BLD 7 lie – and want an investigation to discover the truth. But what will it take for Barnett to snap out of his trance or hypnotic state and accept the model just not match reality? Once he and the other investigators accept the modelling is flawed, we can only then begin to discuss causation.

Society needs to understand that democracy is impossible without the revelation of truth? And the 9/11 event reveals how easy it is to manipulate the minds of millions.

You just keep puffing in the definitive lie – like smoke to a beehive.

Architects and Engineers

Over 2,300 architects and engineers demand a new investigation. One of their videos below.

ae911truth.org have investigated and documented the inconsistencies and ommissions from the NIST report:

A summary here:

OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114

OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM

WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED

VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL

CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES

CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS

REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS

ALL THREE BUILDINGS

NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL

IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C

INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION

FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED

NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS.

REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE

FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL

THE TWIN TOWERS

STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED

PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED

TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL

INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY

COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE

NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE

WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES

NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED

NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS

COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS

MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED