[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Jun 8 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

I can well understand how someone can look at the NIST report and have questions about both their methods and their conclusions. However, to leap from that to "coverup" and "conspiracy" is just insane.

You are right, and I happen to agree with this. There is no concrete proof at all of coverup or conspiracy. And I believe to make this leap is unreasonable without proof. But I believe it just as unreasonable to ignore the flaws in the NIST report and rule out without investigation the possibility of demolition.

And there is only one reason I say this - the controlled demolition hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon, while the NIST does not even try to address all the phenomenon. If a demolition hypothesis gives such a complete account, surely it should be ruled out based on lack of evidence or some other scientific criteria rather than be disregarded as simply implausible.

I don't think it is crazy whatsoever to go from questions about NIST methods and conclusions to a re-investigation. If a re-investigation turned up evidence of a controlled demolition, then at the point the leap to coverup and conspiracy would be narrowed to the point of reasonableness.

But I am with you on the claim that it is too much to leap from doubt to conspiracy; however, I think there is reasonable cause to look deeper into the matter.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But as has been previously pointed out, Building 7 had reasons on than 'conspiracy' to have been wired to explode for decades. And they had reasons other than 'conspiracy' to blow it up, although I think it's more likely that it wasn't intentional (if you wire a building to explode, it's not too shocking when it blows up on its own during a major ground-shaking).

If the building had been pre-wired, and the owner knew that, then collecting insurance on the buidling for a natural collapse would have been a conspiracy to defraud.

No government agency has legal authority to pre-wire occupied building to explode or to destroy occupied buildings with explosives, so if this had occured again it would have been a conspiracy to violate the law.

An argument for some sort of natural reason for collapse would be a lot more compelling than an accidental implosion or pre-planned implosion event.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Jun 8 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

But I am with you on the claim that it is too much to leap from doubt to conspiracy; however, I think there is reasonable cause to look deeper into the matter.

We're in agreement then.

[PassedOut]

This just in: Report Says Fire, Not Explosion, Felled 7 W.T.C.

Quote

The long-delayed report by engineers here at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in suburban Washington is intended to solve one of still lingering central questions about the 2001 attacks: Why did 7 World Trade Center fall, if it was not hit by an airplane.

“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail,” said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator. “Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse that brought the building down.”

So far as I know, there is no public evidence that anyone in the white house "edited" this particular report.

[Al_U_Card]

Oh those crazy fires!!!! This has nothing to do with the fact that the fires were not really located (according to fire dept. calls/ eye witnesses or even video records) in the region of the "vital" support columns.....

Somehow, when insurers are trying to "not pay" on most of my claims....wassup wit dat?

[jtfanclub]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 21 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

Oh those crazy fires!!!! This has nothing to do with the fact that the fires were not really located (according to fire dept. calls/ eye witnesses or even video records) in the region of the "vital" support columns.....

Somehow, when insurers are trying to "not pay" on most of my claims....wassup wit dat?

This is building 7. The short one, not hit by an airplane.

By all means, list all of the fire department calls and video support you have on on building 7 that tells us *anything*.

[Al_U_Card]

jtfanclub, on Aug 21 2008, 01:55 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 21 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

Oh those crazy fires!!!!  This has nothing to do with the fact that the fires were not really located (according to fire dept. calls/ eye witnesses or even video records) in the region of the "vital" support columns.....

Somehow, when insurers are trying to "not pay" on most of my claims....wassup wit dat?

This is building 7. The short one, not hit by an airplane.

By all means, list all of the fire department calls and video support you have on on building 7 that tells us *anything*.

You've got to be kidding.....

7 is the easiest to follow as it wasn't obfuscated and buried nearly as much as 1 and 2. It just collapsed into its footprint nice and neat as most collapsing buildings do....right thru their centre of gravity and line of greatest resistance....as opposed to some other more energetically feasible means...

Most of the various vile and odious "truther" sites are so busy sullying the name and memory of all those poor 9-11 victims with their incessant calls for transparency and openness in the investigation.
You can find all kinds of info relating to 7 but here is some to start you off...


And here's what former NYPD officer & 9/11 first responder Craig Bartmer witnessed while standing next to WTC-7:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

[...]

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the *****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Speaking out: An interview with Craig Bartmer:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=VajJXBabC2k

Related:

Structural Experts Say...
"WTC-7 was with the greatest probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."
Link: http://911blogger.com/node/2925

[jtfanclub]

Um, OK, so you've got a cop who thinks he knows what explosions sound like (in contrast to rapid compression/decompression), and the usual blogger reports.

That's impressive evidence. I am now completely convinced.

(Not that it would matter if it had gone down from controlled demolition. As I've pointed out before, knowing the CIA, Building 7 was probably wired for demolition since they moved into it during the Cold War).

[Al_U_Card]

This guy was the 7 building security chief...

Jennings reported on television a 'big explosion' inside WTC7.

http://ca.youtube.co...h?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

In a new interview, he makes it clear that:

-There was a big explosion and more than one explosion.

-The lobby was destroyed.

-Both Towers were still standing while the explosions took place.

[Al_U_Card]

Some more food for thought

Leaked confidential NIST documents concerning the investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but imploded in under seven seconds on 9/11, reveal that an "unusual" event preceded the collapse of the building - a "jet of flames" that shot out of several windows after most of the fire had already died down.

The documents - entitled Confidential and Predecisonal Document NIST Report on Building 7 - form the preamble for a long-awaited final verdict on what caused a structurally reinforced building to fall like a controlled demolition despite suffering relatively minimal fire damage.

Chapter 1: WTC 7 Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (William Pitts) is a thorough analysis of window fires by video and picture evidence, which concludes that all major fires before floors 7 and 13 died out prior to collapse.

The report states, "At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed."

"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."

The report describes the nature of fires from floors 7-13 and also states, "With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is essentially no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7."

[Al_U_Card]

You can jam a lot of the idle speculation, but some do a better job than others...

http://www.studyof91.../winstonwtc701/


This one has some fine schematics of the internal structures in 7.

[Al_U_Card]

1. Battalion Chief John Norman:

"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/norman.html



2. Captain Chris Boyle:

Boyle:"...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."

Firehouse: "When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?"

Boyle: "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it."

Firehouse: "When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?"

Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/norman.html



3. Battalion Chief Kemly: (second hand report)

"..Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110462.PDF



4. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html



5. Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

"I don't know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...z/visconti.html



6. Chief Frank Fellini:

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110217.PDF


No matter what their expertise, it is clear that a building that collapses has to follow certain paths of least resistance (at least first) and that not everything collapses evenly everywhere all at once.....except when demolished by placed explosives that remove that resistance.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Aug 21 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

Um, OK, so you've got a cop who thinks he knows what explosions sound like (in contrast to rapid compression/decompression), and the usual blogger reports.

That's impressive evidence. I am now completely convinced.

(Not that it would matter if it had gone down from controlled demolition. As I've pointed out before, knowing the CIA, Building 7 was probably wired for demolition since they moved into it during the Cold War).

i don't think you quite get it... it doesn't matter how many *real* investigations are done, as long as the result isn't a conspiracy in some shape or form there are those who won't believe it...

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Aug 21 2008, 05:25 PM, said:

i don't think you quite get it... it doesn't matter how many *real* investigations are done, as long as the result isn't a conspiracy in some shape or form there are those who won't believe it...

But it makes no *sense*. It's not like 9/11 wouldn't have been a big deal if only buildings 1 and 2 go down and not building 7. How would they even know that Building 7 would even be damaged? Why would they care? Even if there was this grand conspiracy to blow up WTC 1 and 2 after an airstrike they knew was coming, what would be the point of blowing up WTC 7?

Furthermore, if the study came out and said that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately, why would we care? It sat there for over 3 hours as a smoldering hulk, if they'd decided to take it down for safety reasons, so what? How would that have had anything to do with WTC 1 and 2?

Finally, the argument here just seems crazy. WTC 7 had its South side burned up long before the center went out. So they're arguing that it would fall to the South as the 'path of least resistance'. But Demolitions work the same way- you can't take a building, get rid of one outside wall, and still have the demolitions do a correct controlled collapse. Demolitions is *tough*. You can't just have a quarter of your demolitions go off prematurely (which is effectively what they're claiming) and get the same result.

The arguments make no sense.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 21 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

"No matter what their expertise, it is clear that a building that collapses has to follow certain paths of least resistance (at least first) and that not everything collapses evenly everywhere all at once.....except when demolished by placed explosives that remove that resistance.

Quote

While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

This is one of the reasons behind the questioning - there are a number of eyewitness testemonies of explosions, yet in quote 2 the "official" body ignored demolition theory due to no recorded explosive sounds?

Don't look and you won't have to find it. Is that kind of like don't ask, don't tell?

[Winstonm]

By the way, it is now the official position of the U.S. government that fire and fire only caused the demise of WTC 7.

Quote

According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.

Quote

and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it...

Quote

thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse

Quote

and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

Quote

controlled demolition....dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

Quote

"boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

Quote

dismissed....thermal expansion

Quote

"boom."

The sound of thermal expansion.....

[Winstonm]

False flags - such as the Lavon Affair - are not that uncommon.

http://ariwatch.com/...LavonAffair.htm


And from a meeting in the offices of our own VP Cheney:

Quote

Transcript:

    HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected - which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted - one of the items was why not…

    There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build - we in our shipyard - build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

    And it was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans. That's the kind of - that's the level of stuff we're talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Aug 21 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

But it makes no *sense*. It's not like 9/11 wouldn't have been a big deal if only buildings 1 and 2 go down and not building 7. How would they even know that Building 7 would even be damaged? Why would they care? Even if there was this grand conspiracy to blow up WTC 1 and 2 after an airstrike they knew was coming, what would be the point of blowing up WTC 7?~~~
The arguments make no sense.

yes, i know...

[Al_U_Card]

Everything happens for a reason.

Not in the philosophical sense....so we should be able to prove the point beyond a reasonable doubt. There is so much doubt and so little effort to determine and explain but lots of effort to obfuscate and deny.

They didn't even search for explosive residues. Anywhere. Despite the eye-witness accounts.

They truck off evidence and "recycle" it as fast as they can.

They use the "insult to the memory of" as a reason for denigrating realistic concerns.

etc. etc.

When something smells fishy, you have to clean it up. Because the Warren Commission ignored and suppressed tons of evidence and it had an agenda to show LHO as a lone gunman.....they are still discussing the event.