nine1124seven

[Madhava Setty @Madhava_Setty]

A short clip from a powerful conversation with @chrismartenson this week:

[Matt Campbell @mattcampbell911]

The documents for Campbell v Attorney General are now public on the Supreme Court website.

On 14–15 October, seven Justices will hear our appeal: can the Attorney General’s refusal to allow us to seek a fresh inquest into my brother Geoff’s death be challenged in court?

Read the documents:
https://t.co/hJyygEXtA3

The High Court judgment we are appealing:
https://t.co/NLNZ4M4qff

25 years after Geoff was killed on 9/11, our family’s fight for answers continues.
#JusticeForGeoff #SupremeCourt #Inquest #911Inquest #JudicialReview

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

@StantonArch1967 https://t.co/xhtIkIvBGW
and..
https://t.co/ewuHPSZ8W8
If you scroll the pdfs at the left there's hundreds of them that I uploaded to the one place. Drawings, inspections, all sorts.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

WTC1 Core Columns accessible from elevator shafts...

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

Yes, they were in and around the place through the 1990s. Here they are popping up in a core column inspection from 1995, continued on from 1993, where they were jogging elevators between floors with guys standing on top of the elevator cars, from where they had access to the core columns.
I'll grab you the link to these reports if you like. Interesting in that they prove that core column access from the shafts was not a problem.

[Matt Campbell @mattcampbell911]

5 DAYS TO GO

One example of why the underlying evidence matters.

The Attorney General relied heavily on the existence of previous US investigations when refusing consent for a new inquest.

But NIST’s investigation of the Twin Towers did not model the entire collapse of the buildings.

Its analysis addressed the sequence leading to collapse initiation.

That distinction matters.

Geoff was killed by the destruction of the North Tower. The legal question of causation is therefore not simply whether collapse began, but what caused the building to be destroyed in the way it was.

Our application placed expert and other evidence before the Attorney General challenging whether that question had ever been adequately investigated.

Yet no court has ever examined that evidence on its merits.

In five days, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Attorney General’s refusal can be judicially reviewed at all.

Before evidence can be tested, there must first be a route into court.

UK Supreme Court
14–15 October 2026
#JusticeForGeoff #911Truth #Inquest #SupremeCourt

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

There's lots of other things @mattwatkajtys didn't account for in his model. Just one would be the mechanical levels where the perimeters were levelled out and then started to stagger again 2 storeys above. Fine to go making an illustration, but to then claim that it somehow endorses the official narrative is a ridiculous claim to be making.
It's a nice picture, an illustration. But it's not structurally accurate in any way, and if he claims to have used the structural drawings in order to put it together, he simply cannot read structural drawings.
No wonder he blocked me.
He did a good job of stairwells and elevators compared to others. I commend him for that.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

And after making that model you stated that the top block of this tower, which you know tapered in wall thickness in core and perimeter weighted 120,000 tons, which is over 35% of the total mass of the whole thing, a figure that you didn't even know until you had this conversation.
Your confidence in based in trust of an official narrative that you do not comprehend and don't have the education to validate. and I applaud those who question it. If NIST or anyone else had confidence in their analysis model they would have released the input data. They did not.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

Things that aren't debated - the core failed initially, which is why the antenna moved straight down then East, and only then did the perimeter move.
YOU have spent a long time studying it supposedly, and even went to the trouble of making a decent illustration, which you kind of try to present as if it were a finite element model (which it absolutely is not) and yet here you are, all of that research later, still disputing a detail that neither side on this debate dispute.
Sit the fk down.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

And after making that model you stated that the top block of this tower, which you know tapered in wall thickness in core and perimeter weighted 120,000 tons, which is over 35% of the total mass of the whole thing, a figure that you didn't even know until you had this conversation.
Your confidence in based in trust of an official narrative that you do not comprehend and don't have the education to validate. and I applaud those who question it. If NIST or anyone else had confidence in their analysis model they would have released the input data. They did not.

[Matt Campbell @mattcampbell911]

6 DAYS TO GO

The Attorney General has refused our application twice.

The first refusal came in June 2023.

After we threatened judicial review, that decision was withdrawn.

A second refusal followed in January 2024.

Yet nearly three years after the first decision, no court has examined whether either refusal was lawful on the substantive grounds we raise.

Why?

Because the Attorney General says the decision itself is effectively immune from judicial review.

So before a court can examine the reasoning, the evidence, the treatment of expert and eyewitness material, or the reliance on previous US investigations, we first have to establish that the decision can be reviewed at all.

That is what makes this case bigger than one inquest.

Can a public decision which closes the door to the High Court itself be placed beyond ordinary judicial scrutiny?

UK Supreme Court
14–15 October 2026
#JusticeForGeoff #911Truth #Inquest #SupremeCourt

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

I'll dumb this down for you Matt.
"Load transfering from core" Since the core did not take lateral load with the exception of the truss itself who's net force would always be zero, the load transferring from the core could only possibly be axial overload in the core columns. - YOU ARE DESCRIBING CORE FAILURE INITIATING THE COLLAPSE THERE.

"through hat truss down the exterior" There's no axial load above the hat truss, so the overstress can only possibly be from beneath it, pulling down. So again, YOU ARE DESCRIBING CORE FAILURE INITIATING THE COLLAPSE.

"until exterior paneling gave way." The exterior columns between 121 and 141 are entirely off-loaded by severance - there is no longer columns connected beneath them holding them up. So, for the third time in one short sentence you are describing the thing you are trying to argue against. CORE FAILURE INITIATING THE COLLAPSE OF THE TOWER.

You are conflating the failure mode of the hat truss, with the structural function of the hat truss.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

@mattwatkajtys @StantonArch1967 1/ You clearly don't understand the function of an outrigger truss. It is there to resist the overturn moment.
2/ You are describing core failure, while arguing against it.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

You are describing a core failure there champ. that downward movement is not the 4 outriggers per face giving up, it's moving down over 6 feet.
One word answer here please. What element group in the tower would have to start to fail in irder to put the 4 outriggers that connected to each perimeter face into overstress ?
I'd say that's core.
You keep contradicting the very reports that you cite yourself.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

Would you like to have a live, on the record discussion about finite element analysis of these structures and their engineering and structural function and behaviour right now, and see who understand forensic engineering analysis and who does not ?
I'm guessing you won't be doing that any time soon. Stick to your animations, and I will stick to forensic engineering.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

@mattwatkajtys @StantonArch1967 FEMA clearly state the downward and then lateral movement of the antenna from VARIOUS angles.
You were talking about the South tilt of the top block which happens after the antenna is observed to have moved. From FEMA report...

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

@mattwatkajtys @StantonArch1967 So you disagree with the FEMA report who agree with my conclusion from multiple angles.
It's telling that you clearly haven't read , and do not understand the reports you apparently agree with.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

It's interesting timing for sure, but without seeing it from multiple fixed cameras synced up it's hard to say because there's so many variables. What's holding the camera, it's location etc. For that video above it's the timing of it that could be considered suspicious because an initiating event from the upper regions of the tower certainly wouldn't transmit that kind of tremor through thr ground, if that's what it is.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

@StantonArch1967 Sorry that was the wrong video. Well, the right video without the zoom in...

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

Yes, it's not until you can look at several different places at once like this that you can see a connection structurally between the events.
The other interesting place to look is the North face around the impact height, where you can see the perimeters that are opposite core columns be pushed out allowing the ones above to descend, and the perimeters off to the corner jolt then move down a second later.
It points to core initiated failure, but also that the slab must be severed in order to allow the different movements in the perimeter columns. It doesn't look top down at all, but more core based and a pull from the core below, which required removal of mass far below the impact.

There's a couple of pics below to show which columns are which, and a video that progressively zooms in tighter and tighter to where they are moving and stalling at initiation.

[nine1124seven @nine1124seven]

For the towers, the lobby damage in the Naudet brothers footage is telling. I don't see how the impact to WTC1 floor 96 can possibly take marble off the core wall and blow the larger street level windows out the way.
However if you were to take cores out at the B levels the core structure is going to pull down and the resulting overstress will redistribute gradually to the perimeter columns and the whole thing will want to shorten.

I can see how that would result in enough shortening to take out the lower large windows, and take the marble off the wall as neither of those materials will shorten under increased load like steel does.

The precision required to do this, and also to initiate the collapse further up isn't something that I could attribute to a DEW or a nuke as they simply do not have the required precision to do it.

One of the most revealing things found in researching the drawings and FE models was that these lower severances in the core would not collapse the structure, but moreover, once the overstress had a dozen or so floors in order to be shared between core and perimeter, and additional cut in the same cores at height would produce a further overstress.

In that way the tower's source of stiffness and structural stability could be used against it in order to bring it down, and I see no reason for thinking that if a group of people went to the trouble of hijacking planes to run into them, that they couldn't also possibly have managed to access the columns required.

So out of those three, I'd say that Mr Gage is the most plausible, but in analysing this I'd rather focus only on where severances in columns are required rather than the means by which these severances could be or were made.

I've not seen a fire/impact based hypothesis that accounts for the structural reactions and initiation.