The thing I find odd about WTC7 is that the footage was never aired again. Obviously it is a controlled demolition. That raises awkward questions.
I still can't say I believe 911 was an "inside job" but there is ample evidence someone is not completely forthcoming about the events of the day. And certainly Bush and Cheney knew more than they admitted.
Amazing as I go back catching up and read through this stuff.
Grumpy should have been banned long before he was, long before. For those here who can read and read well, there are many I know for certain. Just read and study this link. There's really not much more to say.
Paul Joseph Watson & Aaron Dykes
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.
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."
The photographs displayed in the report, many of which have never been seen before, do not show any other damage to the building than the small fires from floors 7-13 and the relatively minimal "scoop" observed on the lower right-hand west face of the building.
What could have caused this "jet of flames" to shoot out of windows immediately prior to the collapse of the building? The decompression force of a series of explosives or an incendiary device?
The leaked documents precede a BBC hit piece documentary which airs on July 6th and is set to claim that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed building in history to suffer a complete collapse from fire damage alone - a scientific impossibility.
As we reported on Monday, Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority Barry Jennings, who was trapped inside Building 7, reported explosions going off and witnessing dead bodies before the collapse of either of the twin towers.
We will be combing through the lengthy NIST documents over the course of the next few days to pick out more irregularities and potential smoking guns over the next few days - stay tuned. Feel free to [url=mailto:email@example.com]e mail[/url] us with any interesting discoveries of your own.
This is a photo that I'm having a great deal of trouble trying to grasp WTF it means. I looked at it many times trying to understand what caused the damage to the vehicles in the pic, it's odd indeed and lends itself toward something few are eager to talk about. ( JMHO ) But it seems some serious heat shot down the canyon and cooked these vehicles.
The building top right is building 7 it's still standing, and that group of fireman. Is it possible that they might not be fireman at all and just dressed the part? How this building just collapsed is the biggest snow job of the whole event ( JMHO )
Notice the WATER COOLER set up on that car near the corner. WTF!
Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 489 Location: A Wonderful World
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject:
What i notice is that the bus has been cooked severely.
Yet, right next door to it, the little tree has handled the heat remarkably well!
Even though the bus has had a 'meltdown', the thin trunk, small branches and even some leaves to the side and on top seemed to have handled it very well!
BTW, is that a bus?
Seats look intact inside?
And we are looking at the back end of the 'bus', which appears to have melted in , not exploded out. Weird.
Discolouring along side the 'bus' seems unusual as well? Almost graffiti like?
And the 'firemen'? Well only 1 maybe 2 have a hat on and although i cant see a fire engine, there seems to be tracks that indicate a vehicle has gone down that road?
Maybe its parked somewhere safe?
NIST has reversed its earlier denial of freefall and acknowledged a period
of freefall comparable to this analysis in their final report on WTC7
released in November 2008. They did their own measurement with a point
near the center of the roof line and came up with an acceleration of 9.81
for approximately 2.25 sec. Their report did not, however, face the
consequences of this acknowledgment: that ALL RESISTANCE was
instantaneously removed across the width of the building, supporting
pre-planted explosives as the cause of the collapse.
Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 is measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds of fall.
During the first round of questions in the Aug 26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing (at 1:01:45 into the presentation) the following question was asked by David Chandler:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"
Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:
"Could you repeat the question?"
[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]
"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
Thus, he acknowledges that their model is at variance with the observable fact that freefall actually occurred. Their response is to hold to their model, deny that freefall occurred, and put up a smokescreen of irrelevant measurements that obscure the reality.
Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 3220 Location: Capacious Creek
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:32 pm Post subject:
Just to answer the question...how fucked up did the WTC7 building really get?
Were (silent ) explosives planted?
Did it's location and design ensure collapse?
Was the fall of WTC7 a planned distraction or just dumb luck?
How has the building ever been relevant?
How could one ever be so blind as to assume the WTC7 was a clue?
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum