NIST WTC7 status report

Originally posted by seekinshadows
And if so how could someone even begin to find evidence of demolition when the very thing you would have to investigate is shipped out and destroyed?

I think we can agree that a demolition would appear very differently than a gravity-only collapse, and we have plenty of photos and videos to analyze.

I think we can all agree on that, and we can all agree that WTC 1 and 2 did not look like a controlled demolition.

No?

I think the only thing we all can agree on is that the demolition argument will shift depending on which issues are being examined.

Problem: No seismic evidence?

Answer: Super secret noiseless thermate-nana-charges.

Problem:Not enough physical evidence to examine?

Answer: The videos show all the trademarks of a conventional demolition.

Problem: No evidence of a conventional demolition?

Answer: Well it was obviously an "unconventional" nano-thermate collapse designed to look like a gravity driven collapse.

Problem: Too many explosives would be needed?

Answer: They only helped it along with magical thermanancutterchargo.

Every time the "evidence" shifts to fit, and ends up contradicting and invalidating the previous "evidence".



[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

What are you talking about LB?

You make absoultely no sense what so ever..

I will have a video of what i am talking about in a little while.. I have never edited video on a PC before.. lots easier on a vcr..

Anyway just hang on there buddy...

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by seekinshadows


Wasn't the wreckage gathered up and shipped out without allowing for any investigation of it?

Short answer, No.

Though this is brought up again and again, it was not shipped out before it could be investigated. FEMA examined it, NIST examined it, ASCE examined it, as well as others.

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

The answer to this is no.

Video here talking about how/why WTC might have fallen and How they DIDNT GET A CHANCE TO INVESTIGATE WHY it fell
www.studyof911.com...

[edit on 11/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 11/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I think we can all agree on that, and we can all agree that WTC 1 and 2 did not look like a controlled demolition.

No?

Yes, I agree with this statement, LeftBehind. There are many on both sides of the aisle regarding whether or not the twin towers looked like a CD.

This is a truthful statement.

I think the only thing we all can agree on is that the demolition argument will shift depending on which issues are being examined.

No seismic evidence?

Super secret noiseless thermate-nana-charges.

Not enough physical evidence to examine?

The videos show all the trademarks of a conventional demolition.

No evidence of a conventional demolition?

Well it was obviously an "unconventional" nano-thermate collapse designed to
look like a gravity driven collapse.

Too many explosives would be needed?

They only helped it along with magical thermanancutterchargo.

Every time the "evidence" shifts to fit, and ends up contradicting and invalidating the previous "evidence".

However, there are problems here.

There were many who testified to explosions at the trade towers...before the planes hit, during the short times they stood after the impacts, and at the time of the collapses.
These are facts. What about them and their testimonies?

For anyone to dismiss all these testimonies because we do not know exactly HOW the demolitions were actually brought about, would be a disservice to not only them, but to ourselves and the truth.

We owe it to the country to get to the truth. This is crucial. Why anyone would not want a new 9/11 investigation at this time is beyond me.

And getting back to WTC7, it is an obvious CD. And, I'm sorry, no one will ever be able to convince or dissuade the countless people otherwise who believe this.

Why? Because they've seen the way it collapsed. (It is probably the most classic CD we will ever see in our lifetimes.)

And getting back to WTC1, there is now seismic proof that corroborates the many eyewitnesses who experienced the explosions before the plane struck the building.

This is causal linkage of indicting evidence of the coverup and complicity.
It is all here in this paper:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
Plane Impact Times – Indicting New Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org... /

This data has not been refuted by anyone yet. It is from the two official government sources that were charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both approved these times as real, accurate, and precise to the second.

Many proponents of the "official conspiracy theory" by the US Government reject these times out-of-hand stating these facts are false; however, unfounded opinions with no factual basis are meaningless.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
What are you talking about LB?

You make absoultely no sense what so ever..

Then why in god's name are you commenting on it, do you really think we value your opinions that much?

Quality over quantity.

That video is one source talking about WTC 7, the multiple sources I quote are talking about the entire site, you know, what the person was talking about.

Sorry, I'll take the word of the head of ASCE testifying to congress over some random video you found.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

Ya isn't it interesting how a lot of things can change in the span of 4 years, 8 months, 4 days, 13 hours, 26 minutes, and 10 seconds

I think it is, A lot of things were useful back then. Not a lot of BS like most sites on the Internet.

Ohh and about the fact of that video piece I brought up. I would trust them more than I would trust some crap site on the Internet. History Channel in my exp has at least tried to be honest in everything they state.

From Hitler allowing the Reichstag to burn all the way up to Roosevelt to allow Pearl Harbor to happen.

So....... Its not as dis info as you think pal.. Before you crit someone actually know what you are talking about.



::EDIT::

Spelling and add this.

I do know how long 9/11 happened to let you know.

Day of 9/11:
5 years, 1 month, 25 days, 5 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds ago

[edit on 11/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]

hey sorry about that last link, another friend at that site changed link before edit on my post expired.

Here is another link to that video..

www.studyof911.com...

This is Modern Marvels Engineering Disasters 13 talking about how they couldn't investigate why that building came down and speculate on why it fell the way it did...

Modern Marvels airs on The History Channel In case some people thinks its DISINFO, which in fact it isn't.

[edit on 11/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
hey sorry about that last link, another friend at that site changed link before edit on my post expired.

Here is another link to that video..

www.studyof911.com...

This is Modern Marvels Engineering Disasters 13 talking about how they couldn't investigate why that building came down and speculate on why it fell the way it did...

Modern Marvels airs on The History Channel In case some people thinks its DISINFO, which in fact it isn't.

[edit on 11/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Thanks for the link to the video, ThichHeaded.

Although this was a well done video providing expert opinion, information and insight, it's interesting that not once did anyone ever use the two words "controlled demolition" during any of this, even in a passing remark. Not once.

I.e., the video was bereft of addressing the obvious, even in passing.

Why?

Because the gatekeepers will not mention "that" which is be avoided (per the keepers), even if everyone knows "that" is the obvious and should have been the first thing to look at for evidence of the most reasonable hypothesis.

Great engineering information & cool graphics, though.

ya I agree but it also says they are doing the same thing we are is only speculating..

So both sides are doing the same thing without proof of much.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
ya I agree but it also says they are doing the same thing we are is only speculating..

So both sides are doing the same thing without proof of much.

Yes, proof is everything...the cold hard facts.
What are needed are facts that are incontrovertible.

With the majority of the American people being basically "afraid" to face the truth, "smoking guns" are what are called for, and the simpler the better. Unfortunately, I can only think of three at present (one of which I happened to find by accident).

To repeat, I only know of three smoking guns:
1. WTC7's obvious collapse indicative of CD.

2. The scientific sound analysis demonstrating explosions occurred before and during the collapse of WTC1, which is found in the video "9/11 Eyewitness" [you have to go in 44 mins 30 secs]
video.google.com...

3. The ~10-second contradiction in times for the initiating event of 9/11 at WTC1:
seismic [8:46:30...explosions...LDEO/NIST 2005]
vs
radar [8:46:40...aircrash...9/11 Commission Final Report 2004]
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

One thing I have researched and concluded is that Nos. 2 & 3 are ones the naysayers can not touch. Proponents of the OCT avoid these two like the plague because they can not be answered--they are above question because they are simply facts. In their case, the OCT'rs do the only thing they can--they ignore them.

There is a veritable "slugfest" of arguments going back and forth about WTC7 because this one is not provable (at least not at this point). The OCT'rs waiting for NIST to come up with an answer on WTC7 is probably like hoping to win the lotto; you can dream on, but it probably won't be happening too soon (not even in 2007). Conversely, the only thing CT'rs have going for them about WTC7 is the spreading of videos showing its collapse amongst the general population--a case of "a picture is worth a thousand words"--however, this is a worthwhile effort.




Can you think of any other real smoking guns (ones not open for debate because they are simply incontrovertible facts)? I can't. I've looked hard, far and wide, but everything else seems to be open for argument of varying degrees.

But with smoking guns Nos. 2 & 3, and with WTC7 bringing up a crucial close third, and then with all the other strong factual data (even though it is still subject to argument), any intellectually honest person can be convinced about the truth of 9/11.

Once enough people come to this understanding and the country gets to a "saturation" point, then, God willing, we finally will get a new 9/11 investigation, except this time a real one with teeth.

Time will tell. One can only pray and work toward this goal.




PS Please don't think I am a "swelled head" because I found one of these smoking guns. I only found it by accident, and as we have been saying all along, "Don't shoot the messenger."; i.e., I only want justice, which is all anyone can ask. [We are all in this together!]

Actually, what I'd really like to see is the beginning of 100 years of peace for this country and the world. That's my prayer, even though I am sure many will think I have a better chance at winning the lotto (and I don't even gamble).
And yet, God wants us to pray.

THEREFORE TAKE UP THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD
SO THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO RESIST IN THE EVIL DAY
AND AFTER HAVING DONE EVERYTHING
TO STAND FIRM

Getting back to WTC7, one of the OCT'rs main arguing points is that basically many in the FDNY believed it would collapse. If it was a CD, whoever was responsible for the CD must have had people in place (and probably on the ground after the collapses of the towers) ready to spread this kind of thinking (after all, they pre-planned to bring it down). We are talking about a conspiracy here. And the fact that WTC7 was damaged, on fire, and in view of two major prior collapses of unprecedented proportions, there should have been no problem promulgating this belief among the personnel of the FDNY that WTC7 was certainly going to come down.


E.g., consider this testimony:
But anyway, more to the point, a rumor started to develop that tower 7 was going to fall on us or nearby us. Having just lived through the collapse and having Dr. Kelly just live through the collapse with both of us getting buried, this was not a very pleasing feeling. It really does make me understand a lot about psychological stress that can occur in these events because I would not have had the same worry about this if I hadn't just come through one of them.
graphics8.nytimes.com...


Now, consider this testimony:

Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)


In view of the first paragraph above, my question to start would be:

Who was this person from the city's Office of Emergency Management who told Captain Currid building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it"?

what do you think of the very silent and nearly invisible, former head assistant of Mayor Giuliani ? He also headed most of the " after 9/11-cleanup".

Lately there has been a short thread or post about him in this forum.
The ideal insider.

I have also posted somewhere another OEM member name which came up in the pieces of the NIST report I had the chance to read up till now, I really have to start concentrating on the whole report, I promise I will find crosslinked mistakes and peculiar litle facts they seeded in there. Not all scientists can be bought, you know. NIST must have an awfull lot of inherent honest researchers onboard.

That was the OEM guy who came running from OEM when it was evacuated much too early already, to tell Giuliani that the South Tower was going to fall.
They said that he got that news from a heli who observed the crackling of some perimeter wall pieces high up the towers.

How come that the NIST report time he left to run to Giuliani, was remarkably earlier than the timestamp on the heli pilot's message over the radio?


PS : see also my post here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/11/06 by LaBTop]

The building WTC 7 was ordered evacuated at 09:44 in the MORNING !
That damn strange decision at a much too early time to abandon the 27 million dollars upgraded OEM Command Center of mayor Guiliano.
That was the most cowardly decision made on that morning, either by Guiliano or a higher up in command at that moment, and it could be a NYPD commissioner who gave that order, he also ordered the Empire State Building to be evacuated just before 09:44 a.m.

It is very strange that in the NIST Final Report 1-8 from 26 October 2005 (still no final on WTC 7). , there is a very long list of rescue personnel witness statements at the end, but there are NO mentions of ANY decisions coming through on ALL radio channels BEFORE 09:44 from the OEM Command Center.
And that from a 27 million dollar upgraded Command Center.
The only one is a statement from an EMS officer, that he was assigned to OEM.
Not long before OEM was abandoned, effectively leaving the whole nerve center of all rescue operations worthless.
It took another 14 minutes before the first collapse occured, and then still the firefighter command desk was bravely operating in WTC 2, the south tower, farest away from WTC 7.
Why had that so important OEM center needed to be totally abandoned ?

Source :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You also better read the next post there of mine in that thread page:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by LaBTop
what do you think of the very silent and nearly invisible, former head assistant of Mayor Giuliani ? He also headed most of the " after 9/11-cleanup".

Lately there has been a short thread or post about him in this forum.
The ideal insider.

I have also posted somewhere another OEM member name which came up in the pieces of the NIST report I had the chance to read up till now, I really have to start concentrating on the whole report, I promise I will find crosslinked mistakes and peculiar litle facts they seeded in there. Not all scientists can be bought, you know. NIST must have an awfull lot of inherent honest researchers onboard.

That was the OEM guy who came running from OEM when it was evacuated much too early already, to tell Giuliani that the South Tower was going to fall.
They said that he got that news from a heli who observed the crackling of some perimeter wall pieces high up the towers.

How come that the NIST report time he left to run to Giuliani, was remarkably earlier than the timestamp on the heli pilot's message over the radio?


PS : see also my post here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/11/06 by LaBTop]

Going and looking at the post you linked there, LaBTop, that is some really great stuff you've pointed out!

Moving the slider you can easily see that white, gaseous cloud. What could it have been other than evidence of an explosion? It is reminiscent of the huge white cloud that formed at the base of WTC1 just before the tower was blown, which can be seen in the video, "9/11 Eyewitness"; in the video the unavoidable conclusion (per the scientific sound analysis) is that it was a tremendous explosion. This gaseous, white cloud you've isolated here is more than likely evidence of the same.

I've seen that squib you've pointed out before. Yes, it is way too far down the face of the building to be air pressure caused by the collapse way above. It must be an actual squib from a detonation.

Both of these are indicting evidence.

And about that girder-portion--wow! What great eyes you've got, LaBTop; but not only that, your reasoning is sound: how could this portion from way, high up be landing so close to the base of the tower, and yet other girders of massive tonnage be ejected out the length of 2 football fields? This again is another example of tremendous, explosive power.

You might want to forward these three items to either Professor Jim Fetzer [[email protected]] or to Professor Steven Jones [[email protected]] with the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. It's that good, and everything matters in this hunt for the truth.

Thanks, and please continue your research!

to email these gentlemen. I really don't have much time anymore to go into a lengthy interaction.
I am not after fame or whatever, I want these slugs who planned all this to be brought to justice, so all these brave souls who died on 9/11, and all the innocents slaughtered afterwards as a result of that evil plan, will not have died in vain.
I must publicize all my thoughts and findings before time will left me behind.

the background of former mayor Giuliano. His past and present.
Or he knew, or he was used but knew fairly quickly that he was used.
Check up his latests asset in his law firm.
The same guy who declared New York's air safe to breath within 3 days.
That air was a health hazard of the first order !

Originally posted by LaBTop
to email these gentlemen. I really don't have much time anymore to go into a lengthy interaction.
I am not after fame or whatever, I want these slugs who planned all this to be brought to justice, so all these brave souls who died on 9/11, and all the innocents slaughtered afterwards as a result of that evil plan, will not have died in vain.
I must publicize all my thoughts and findings before time will left me behind.

Your words that I have bolded...I couldn't have said it any better myself, sir!

God's speed to you.