by
Scott Creighton (archived from Aug. 2008)
Yesterday,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a division
of the Department of Commerce, finally released it’s report on
the cause of the mysterious collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade
Center (WTC) complex. There have already been several
to jump out in front and claim that this puts an end to the
“conspiracy theories” that have surrounded Building 7’s
inexplicable destruction, since it happened on Sept. 11th 2001.
“We
really have a new kind
of progressive collapse that we have discovered here, which is a fire
induced progressive collapse. In fact, we
have shown for the first time,
that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”.
Shyam
Sunder. (first time in history
and flies in the face of what we know about engineering and the laws
of physics. But, they NEVER tested for
explosive residue and yet, this is
the “first time” this “new” phenomenon occurred? Right.)
Steven
Jones and Richard Gage have already come forward and denounced NIST’s
finding as implausible.
NIST’s
entire theory is based on the idea that regular office fires burned
hot enough to cause a failure of a key connection in a key area that
cause “global” and symmetrical failure to occur. This is highly
improbable at best (since it never happened in the history of steel
framed high-rise buildings). NIST is basing their findings, not on
forensic evidence but rather a computer simulation; a computer
simulation that they programed and tweakedandif it’s anything like
their “computer simulation” they did to come up with the “global
collapse” scenario of the North and South Towers, then they will
NEVER allow an architect or engineer anywhere near the simulation
program so they can evaluate it’s accuracy.
But
that isn’t the big news flash that should be coming out of this
report. The fact is, it looks like the sole reasons that NIST is
claiming that they concluded there was no “controlled demolition”
of Building 7 appears to be coming from Mark
Loizeaux; the owner of the
demolitioncompany
that was on scene of the WTC destruction right after 9/11 and a man
by his own admission, called his friends in lower Manhattan on Sept.
11, 2001 and told them to get out of the area because he
knew the buildings would come down.
Mark
Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having
been a contributing contractor for the report.
They
took the word of the owner of the controlled demolition company that
was on-site right after the WTCs fell (and
possibly even before)
contracted to do “clean-up”
while search and rescue teams were still looking for survivors,
rather
than testing for explosive residue.
That’s right, NIST
has admitted they
NEVER tested for the tell-tale evidence of explosive residueat
the WTC site.
Starting
on page 22 of NIST’s report, Chapter 3.3 Hypothetical Blast
Senarios, NIST dedicates only 2 pages (of the reports 110) to the
investigation of whether or not controled demolition was the cause of
this strange collapse.
In
those two pages, NIST explains the two pieces of evidence that they
used to come to this conclusion. One is that the sounds of the
collapse differ from that of what would be “expected” to have
occurred were this to be a controlled demolition; based solely on yet
another software program that is designed to anticipate what a blast
would sound like. Once again, this “evidence” is programed by
NIST and will probably not be available for peer review.
But
the most telling of their ‘evidence” in this section, we have
heard before. It comes straight from the BBC’s hit piece on
Building
7 Conspiracy Theoriesthat came
out about a month ago. That film featured Mark Loizeaux, owner of
Controlled Demolition Inc., giving his reasons why the WTC Building 7
could not have been a controlled demolition. He said in short, that
over-pressure from the blasts would have caused window breakage on
every surrounding building, on ALL sides of the buildings, and that
there was no way around it. Therefore, it could NOT have been a
controlled demolition.
I did
a little research and found, on CDI’s site, a description of the
demolition of the J.L. Hudson building (video below) that
clearly described one of the key problems that demolition faced as
being the window breakage of the surrounding buildings, and that CDI
PROUDLY BOASTED that they were able to drop the building (the exact
same square footage of Building 7) without breaking many windows at
all facing the explosions, much less the windows on the opposite
sides of the demolition.
Now,
NIST presents it’s only real “evidence” that there was no
controlled demolition as ONCE AGAIN a computer
program simulation based on one massive
cutter charge, would cause “different window breakage as was
witnessed at 4:00pm on Building 7″.
This
computer simulation comes from a demolition design program.
Did
they have CDI and Mark Loizeaux, the prime suspects in a controlled
demolition scenario, produce this simulation on their own demolition
software? Does this “prove” that controlled demolition didn’t
happen on 9/11?
Because
this and the “expectedsound”
simulation, is the ONLY evidence that NISTprovides us with to
discredit the controlled demolition hypothesis, in their new report
on Building 7.
NIST
DID NOT test for explosive charge residue in any of the remaining
debris from Building 7.
Steven
Jones and others have found conclusive evidence of the residual trace
elements of Thermite and Thermate in dust from 9/11 as well as in the
remaining molten metal evidence.
How
could NIST, a government agency tasked with protecting the interests
of American citizens, not test for explosive residues AFTER several
accredited experts have reported they have found them?
How
could NIST turn over to CDI, a company that was on site immediately
after 9/11 and obtained many government contracts since 9/11, the
task of looking for evidence of controlled demolition when CDI is in
fact the leading suspect if such an investigation would be conducted
in earnest?
Ironically,
the computer models of the “heat expansion” theory are based
solely on the concept of “one key column” being compromised, and
the controlled demolition theory “computer simulation” was based
on exactly the same thing.
Below
you will find a Youtube video of controled demolition of a building.
The reason I include it is to show that companies like CDI are very
capable of demoing buildings WITHOUT blowing out their windows.
We
need to demand to see NISTs computer simulations to make damn sure
that they haven’t been “tweaked” like the WTC 1 and 2
simulations were. We also need to demand to know if CDI created the
“blast senario” simulations on their own computer assisted
demolition program. CDI’s records should be seizedimmediately and
gone over with a fine tooth comb.
This
kind of “evidence” is unbelievable coming from an agency like
NIST.
JL
Hudson Building blows up. watch the glass remain intact.
WTC7,
one of the few videos with sound. Listen to the ‘explosions” in
the first part of the video and the firemen talking about the
building about to “blow up”.
After
you can clearly hear an explosion in the video, someone on the video
asks someone else… Did you hear that?”
NIST
counters this kind of evidence as well as the explosive residues
found by other qualified aganciesand people, with a computer
simulation
probably done by the one company that would be the prime suspects in
a real investigation.
What’s
worse is that they probably PAID hundreds
of thousands of our tax-payer dollars for this “evidence”. Mark
Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having
been a contributing contractor
for the report.
No comments:
Post a Comment