|2001.September.11||TV Broadcasts Show Pyrotechnics
Sparks and molten metal stream out of South Tower in its final minutes
|2002.May||FEMA Issues Final Report|
Appendix C of report discloses extreme corrosive attack on steel
|2005||USGS Documents Iron-Rich Spheroids
Spheroids have shape and chemical composition of aluminothermic residues
|2005.June.23||NIST Releases Twin Towers Draft Report
Draft report avoids subject of explosives and demolition entirely
|2005.July.08||Markos Bans Discussion of the World Trade Center on Daily Kos|
Letters to NIST request consideration of evidence of explosives and incendiaries
|2005.September||NIST Releases Twin Towers Final Report
Report claims that NIST found no evidence of explosives
|2006.August.30||NIST Posts FAQ
NIST explains orange glowing metal as molten aluminum with organic material. NIST calls thermite ‘an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition’
|2006.August.31||Jones Responds To NIST FAQ
Experiments disprove NIST explanation of orange glow as aluminum
|2006||Richard Gage, AIA, a practicing architect hears about the collapse of WTC Building 7 for the first time. Organizes Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth around a petition for a new investigation.|
|2006.October.18||NIST Report Author Speaks at University of Texas
Lead engineer of NIST investigation denies molten metal
|2007.April.16||Group Submits Request For Corrections to NIST
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ) faults NIST’s refusal to examine evidence of explosives.
|2007.June.29||NIST Posts Update on WTC7 Investigation
NIST to addresses controlled demolition of WTC7 with single-blast scenario.
|2007.September.27||NIST Responds to STJ RFC
NIST replies to RFC, defending its failure to test for explosives by claiming that such tests might be inconclusive.
|2007.October.25||Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to RFC
NIST apprised of chemistry of aluminothermics, disabused of notion that testing prone to inconclusive results.
|2008.August.2||Article Exposes NIST Nanothermite Connections
Ryan shows numerous connections between NIST authors and the explosive nanocomposites NIST refuses to acknowledge.
|2008.August.21||NIST Releases WTC 7 Report Draft
Draft admits that NIST did no physical testing.
|2008.September.10||Whistleblower Reviews NIST WTC7 Report
NIST’s pattern of denying and ignoring evidence detailed.
|2008.September.15||Scientists and Engineers File Request For Correction for NIST WTC 7. Draft Letter submitted by 16 scientist, scholars, and engineers.|
|2008.November.11||NIST Releases WTC 7 Final Report
Almost identical to Draft Report, hides refusal to address explosives evidence behind ‘Hypothetical Blast Scenario.’
|2008.December.18||NIST Publishes WTC7 FAQ
NIST repeats claim that thermite is unsuited to demolition.
|2009.March.24||Scientific Paper Shows Active Thermitics in Dust
Scientists show WTC dust samples contain chips of active nano-engineered ‘super-thermite’. This paper stands unchallenged in the scientific literature as of June 2012.
|2012||With many intervening documents, AE911Truth releases the final edition of the documentary “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.” In which 40 highly credentialed experts describe how the NIST explanation of the twin Towers and Building 7 cannot be correct.|
(We are hopeful)
|DailyKos rescinds its rule prohibiting the discussion of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center. Discussion of the AE911Truth evidence is encouraged.|