Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.
After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.
''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.''
_________________ Currently working on a new website
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject:
scubadiver wrote:
I am surprised no one commented on the last clip.
I echo my initial comments on this thread - these videos are full of fairly nauseating bias, and once you get past the bluster there is actually very little of a factual basis to even respond to.
For example, Chandler mentions a theory that he seems to have plucked out of the air about how only a certain sequence of carefully timed events can cause such an 'even' collapse along the whole length of a facade - he parrots this lunatic theory as if it were established truth, then swiftly moves on with no factual explanation whatsoever. This theory is absolute bunkum imo - I have challenged truthers numerous times on this forum to substantiate such a claim, because I believe no explanation of such a thing exists.
Another typical moment is where he quotes NIST's mention of the phase of freefall being consistent with their calculations, then says "you couldn't make this up". Yet Chandler offers no discussion of how their calculations actually are inconsistent with the phase of freefall - indeed he accepts that many of NIST's measurements match his own. This is not analysis of any sort - it is simply throwaway comments from the playground.
If NIST's calculations are inconsistent, then why can't he prove it by reference to the actual report - why try to score cheap points about an irrelevant press conference when there are reams of actual written evidence to which to refer? This is childish in the extreme.
Chandler also makes no distinction between the freefall that NIST claim occured in a phase of the collapse, and the total freefall of a building. Sunder's quotes are presented totally lacking this crucial context. Chandler makes no mention that NIST's hypothesis involves the collapse of the exterior facade, rather than the entirety of the structure that he assumes (based on what?).
The idea that NIST's computer models are biased and/or fraudulent is a major assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever - you cannot get more unscientific than that, and it is only made more unsavoury by Chandler's feeble attempts to sound rational.
Quote:
I found this:
I don't understand the relevance if this article to anything. Please elaborate on its significance - at face value it seems to have none.
I echo my initial comments on this thread - these videos are full of fairly nauseating bias, and once you get past the bluster there is actually very little of a factual basis to even respond to.
For example, Chandler mentions a theory that he seems to have plucked out of the air about how only a certain sequence of carefully timed events can cause such an 'even' collapse along the whole length of a facade - he parrots this lunatic theory as if it were established truth, then swiftly moves on with no factual explanation whatsoever. This theory is absolute bunkum imo - I have challenged truthers numerous times on this forum to substantiate such a claim, because I believe no explanation of such a thing exists.
Another typical moment is where he quotes NIST's mention of the phase of freefall being consistent with their calculations, then says "you couldn't make this up". Yet Chandler offers no discussion of how their calculations actually are inconsistent with the phase of freefall - indeed he accepts that many of NIST's measurements match his own. This is not analysis of any sort - it is simply throwaway comments from the playground.
If NIST's calculations are inconsistent, then why can't he prove it by reference to the actual report - why try to score cheap points about an irrelevant press conference when there are reams of actual written evidence to which to refer? This is childish in the extreme.
Chandler also makes no distinction between the freefall that NIST claim occured in a phase of the collapse, and the total freefall of a building. Sunder's quotes are presented totally lacking this crucial context. Chandler makes no mention that NIST's hypothesis involves the collapse of the exterior facade, rather than the entirety of the structure that he assumes (based on what?).
The idea that NIST's computer models are biased and/or fraudulent is a major assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever - you cannot get more unscientific than that, and it is only made more unsavoury by Chandler's feeble attempts to sound rational.
Alex, you are blustering here aren't you? Throwing around the phrase "lunatic theory" as if you actually understand what you are talking about. Almost every time I read your comments, it is as if you are living in a parallel universe to me.
Anyway, it is very simple - it is a simple video. Freefall took place for over 2 seconds. The NIST lead man Sunder, at a press conference, states that for freefall to take place all support must be removed. For over 2 seconds of freefall, that is quite a few stories of WTC7 where all support must be removed. Thus Chandler's "lunatic theory" is actually agreeing with Sunder's view, is he a lunatic also?
Chandler points out that NIST do not explain how all of the columns across the whole building suddenly fail at the same time. They have a computer model but aren't releasing the figures that they threw into the model. It is that simple.
Maybe we should get simpler still. Have you ever played Jenga?
If you have the full 18 story tower, how would you make it drop in freefall for a quarter of its height? You would have to remove all of the blocks for 4-5 levels - at exactly the same time. That is the only way to do it. Is that a lunatic theory? Can you achieve it by the removal of just a single block? Or a block at a time as fast as you can?
Do you actually get freefall at all? WTC7 was in freefall for over 2 seconds, can you explain how that is possible with fire alone?
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:26 am Post subject:
Alec,
It is clever that you ignored the article from the New York Times which reported that WTC7 was reinforced in the late 80s. _________________ Currently working on a new website
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Almost every time I read your comments, it is as if you are living in a parallel universe to me.
I wholeheartedly agree, but that is of no real relevance.
Quote:
Anyway, it is very simple - it is a simple video. Freefall took place for over 2 seconds.
NIST and Chandler agree on that point. Hell of a conspiracy ain't it?
Quote:
The NIST lead man Sunder, at a press conference, states that for freefall to take place all support must be removed.
Again, NIST and Chandler presumably agree on that point also. No conspiracy.
Quote:
For over 2 seconds of freefall, that is quite a few stories of WTC7 where all support must be removed.
This is where Chandler (and presumably yourself) depart into cloud cuckoo land. NIST's report exists primarily to explain how the support failed - you may not agree with their findings, but to claim that they are somehow burying the issue or ignoring it is 100% wrong. Their whole report exists to explain the collapse - Chandler seems unaware of this utterly obvious truth. He seems to want to pretend that the actual report doesn't exist.
NIST suggest that the freefall occured to the visible facade on the video - none of their models suggest that the whole building collapsed in this way, but that it was a chain reaction based on structural failures lower in the building. You will not find Chandler emphasising this key point because to do so would be for him to admit that the crux of his crusade is a gigantic straw man argument. In short, he is attacking NIST for things they do not claim, and making grand claims in seeming total ignorance of NIST's actual explanation of the collapse.
Quote:
Chandler points out that NIST do not explain how all of the columns across the whole building suddenly fail at the same time.
Chandler doesn't give a toss what NIST are explaining. NIST never claimed that this made-up piece of conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo is required. Nobody in the truth movement can explain this tosh, because it is pure fantasy.
Please link to me where anybody in the truth movement explains how and why the columns 'across the whole building' have to fail at the same time. You can't, because it is made up nonsense. And this is the wafer thin misconception on which the whole house of cards is built.
As I say, please explain to me, or point me towards anything that explains how this theory possibly holds up to any real scrutiny. If you cannot, you and Chandler have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER.
Quote:
They have a computer model but aren't releasing the figures that they threw into the model. It is that simple.
More nonsense. Whatever is 'hidden' from view is taken as evidence of conspiracy. Anything that NIST didn't publish is proof of foul play - an idiotic argument, utterly flawed logic. As Chandler himself admits, he cannot know whether their figures are correct or not. So why assume that they made them up? Because it confirms the conspiracy that HE has made up. Again a house of cards - all based on assumption, no actual evidence. Bottom line - there is only a conspiracy here if you make one up.
Quote:
Maybe we should get simpler still. Have you ever played Jenga? ...If you have the full 18 story tower, how would you make it drop in freefall for a quarter of its height? You would have to remove all of the blocks for 4-5 levels - at exactly the same time. That is the only way to do it. Is that a lunatic theory? Can you achieve it by the removal of just a single block? Or a block at a time as fast as you can?
Sorry, this is utter nonsense. You would get laughed out of any science classroom with this tosh. Believe me when I say that this is irrelevant, childish nonsense - sorry to be so blunt but it is embarrassing.
Had WTC7 been built from large Jenga blocks in the same pattern as the popular game, your example would STILL be irrelevant, because it offers no discussion of the materials used, the problems of scale, the contribution of fire, fireproofing or the lack of, weight, mass, possible damage to the building, or the physical nature of the collapse itself.
The whole idea would be hilarious were it not for the fact that I have seen Richard Gage on video trying to explain the twin towers collapse using stacked cardboard boxes on a desk. Pathetic.
Quote:
Do you actually get freefall at all? WTC7 was in freefall for over 2 seconds, can you explain how that is possible with fire alone?
NIST spent a whole report on the issue of WTC7. If you do not understand it, or want to make up reasons why it's a calculated fraud, then that is your right.
They have a computer model but aren't releasing the figures that they threw into the model. It is that simple.
More nonsense. Whatever is 'hidden' from view is taken as evidence of conspiracy. Anything that NIST didn't publish is proof of foul play - an idiotic argument, utterly flawed logic. As Chandler himself admits, he cannot know whether their figures are correct or not. So why assume that they made them up? Because it confirms the conspiracy that HE has made up. Again a house of cards - all based on assumption, no actual evidence. Bottom line - there is only a conspiracy here if you make one up.
When you say "nonsense", are you saying I am factually incorrect? Why do you keep throwing around phrases like conspiracy and foul play about?
They had no forensic evidence. They had some photos and some videos. In other words, they are guessing.
They are basing all of their report on a computer model but not releasing the figures they used. Thus we are not allowed to examine how they make their guess.
Scientifically speaking, do you think this is
a. a good thing OR
b. a bad thing?
Should all future skyscraper design take into account this computer model guess?
They had no forensic evidence. They had some photos and some videos. In other words, they are guessing.
What would you suggest that they could or should have done differently?
Quote:
Should all future skyscraper design take into account this computer model guess?
It will.
1Well obviously retaining some of the wreckage for forensic purposes would have made a lot of sense and would not have been hard to do. Without that, releasing the computer model is also advisable so that others can examine what they have done and possibly dispute their findings. The temperatures involved were not high, by NIST's own admission.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject:
KP50 wrote:
Well obviously retaining some of the wreckage for forensic purposes would have made a lot of sense and would not have been hard to do.
The more evidence the better, I agree. Worth noting that NIST weren't brought into the equation until late 2002, so it would be unfair to blame them directly for the collection of evidence that they would have presumably had little authority over.
Obviously there are a number of (unproven) assumptions you have to make to get to a conspiracy theory. That physical evidence would have shown definitive evidence of CD. That such evidence was intentionally suppressed. That NIST's existing investigation was necessarily a cover-up. None of this is proven, and the beliefs of the truth movement are reprehensible in this regard - having a suspicious mind is one thing, false accusations based on no evidence is quite another.
You certainly cannot rationally work backwards from the presumption of guilt, because then you naturally fit the circumstantial evidence to the crime. It does not follow that evidence that doesn't exist WOULD DEFINITIVELY PROVE a CD, because further physical evidence may only have supported NIST's hypothesis. There is no evidence of suppression of evidence - it was taken away and destroyed, but it would likely have been removed and destroyed whether or not it was intentionally hidden from the investigation. And there is certainly no evidence whatsoever that NIST themselves suppressed physical evidence from their report.
Quote:
Without that, releasing the computer model is also advisable so that others can examine what they have done and possibly dispute their findings.
I don't know if it's practical to do so. There may be problems of licensing or simply the practicalities of supplying the public with access to one of the most complicated computer simulations ever undertaken. Would it be reasonable for a report of this nature to offer every last corner of a computer simulation to the public for review? Of course not.
Certainly it is not disputed where NIST say they got their data from for the simulation, as it is documented extensively in NCSTAR 1-9. Analysis of video and photographic evidence, existing building codes, reconstruction of the structure of the building, the combustibles inside etc etc.
Again, there is a difference between a certain suspicion of NIST's motives, and the allegation that their models are a fake. It seems to me almost irrationally hopeful to consider that a look at the data fed into the computer model would uncover obvious signs of fakery.
It's just another assumption to add to the list - if the computer model then showed no sign of fakery, the suspicious mind will just naturally move on to the next piece of the jigsaw. Were the structural records tampered with? Were building codes deliberately ignored but covered up by NIST? Video evidence faked? Fire simulations deliberately overestimated? You could literally go on forever with these allegations, and there's no harm in considering anything, as long as you don't assume the conspiracy without evidence to support it. A vague suspicion of a computer model means NOTHING.
Quote:
The temperatures involved were not high, by NIST's own admission.
A misleading statement. As far as I understand it, the temperatures involved were estimated to be fairly normal for an office fire of its type. What NIST actually have said is that the probable collapse initiation occured below the temperatures expected in the existing building code. Hence the suggestions for amendments to the code - this was. after all, the reason the NIST reports were requested in the first place, not to placate the suspicious minds of truthers.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject:
Here's a video rebutting David Chandler's complaints - principally his claim that the 18 floors took only 3.9 seconds to collapse, and that NIST has made-up the 5.4 second figure it uses.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
Alex,
In YOUR honest opinion what do you think caused WTC7 to collapse?
As far as I'm concerned NIST seem to have proved that it was probably fire alone.
But I don't see how my personal opinion, as a layman, is really of any relevance.
What I can do is defend NIST's report against ill-founded, inaccurate, badly presented, and utterly biased criticism.
I can also encouraged those who may have genuine criticism of NIST to take their criticisms through legitimate channels, where they face genuine checks on their legitimacy of their claims. Rather than sniping totally outside any checking process in Youtube videos.
NIST seem to have proved it without releasing any of the figures they used in their computer models, or even without testing any samples whatsoever of the steel from WTC7. Do you not find this a tad suspicious?
Your video also claims there is no evidence of CD for WTC7. Have they heard the testimony from Barry Jennings? Which, i´m sure without realising it, NIST actually helps support.
But something has puzzled me for a while now, for years ´critics´ have posted pictures of damage to WTC7 to point out that it wasn´t fire alone that caused it to collapse, presumably because even the ´critics´ didn´t believe fire alone could bring it down, how times have changed.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
NIST seem to have proved it without releasing any of the figures they used in their computer models, or even without testing any samples whatsoever of the steel from WTC7. Do you not find this a tad suspicious?
Which figures do you want to see? Not the ones in the extremely extensive NIST report, which is publicly available to all and goes into great detail about the subject. No, it's the figures that aren't in the report, those must be the incriminating ones. You're not sure what figures those exactly are, but whatever they are, they're the ones that must show NIST lied.
If NIST released the figures for their computer model you would either assume they were fake figures, or had been secretly tweaked behind the scenes. They cannot win.
Specifically which bits of steel that NIST had access to would you have liked them to test? Or is it just vague 'bits' - ie whichever bits they didn't test were obviously the incriminating bits. You don't know what bits of steel those are, but whatever and wherever they are, they're the ones that would prove NIST are lying.
If NIST had tested every bit of steel in the whole building, you would just accuse them of faking their results anyway. They cannot win.
If NIST released the figures for their computer model you would either assume they were fake figures, or had been secretly tweaked behind the scenes. They cannot win.
So you are saying that they won´t release the figures incase ´conspiracy theorists´ accuse them of faking it?
Why are you willing to support this if even YOU haven´t seen the figures? Wouldn´t you like to know how they came to their conclusion or are you happy just being spoonfed information?
Quote:
Specifically which bits of steel that NIST had access to would you have liked them to test?
All of it i would hope. I mean this has got to go down as the biggest failure in history for a steel high rise building to collapse in the way it did due to fire alone.
Quote:
Or is it just vague 'bits' - ie whichever bits they didn't test were obviously the incriminating bits.
You do know they didn´t test ANY bits, right?
Quote:
If NIST had tested every bit of steel in the whole building, you would just accuse them of faking their results anyway. They cannot win.
How can they win when they don´t release the figures that enabled them to come to the conclusion that fire alone brought down a massive steel contructed high rise building? I mean isn´t that part of science, that you show your workings out?
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
Why are you willing to support this if even YOU haven´t seen the figures?
What are the figures? Can you explain them to me? What is it that you think is missing? What figures could NIST provide that would convince you their research was genuine?
Quote:
Nothing too say on Barry Jennings?
It's a different debate I feel. I find that these threads become even more useless if we jump around from one accusation to the next.
Erm that was my point, they haven't released their figures.
Quote:
It's a different debate I feel. I find that these threads become even more useless if we jump around from one accusation to the next.
Well it does relate to the destruction of WTC7, and i happen too think that eyewitness testimony of WTC7 suffering damage before the towers fell falls into that category. And like i said, NIST actually goes someway in helping support Jennings case.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:22 pm Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
Erm that was my point, they haven't released their figures.
There is a report full of figures.
Prove to me that there are figures that NIST could release that they have held back. You can't.
That's the reason I think it's a silly argument.
The second reason I think it's a silly argument is that if NIST did release some extra figures (whatever they are) you still wouldn't accept the legitimacy of their report.
Let's be honest, it's got nothing to do with missing figures. You just think they're crooks, but can't prove it.
Quote:
Well it does relate to the destruction of WTC7, and i happen too think that eyewitness testimony of WTC7 suffering damage before the towers fell falls into that category. And like i said, NIST actually goes someway in helping support Jennings case.
I think you know what Jennings case is, he states that there was a massive explosion in WTC7 before the towers fell. Critics try and pass off what he experienced as the towers collapsing.
Unfortunately NIST state that EVERYONE was evacuated before the towers collapsed.
Quote:
Why were there no fatalities from the collapse of WTC 7?
Several factors contributed to the outcome of no loss of life—or serious injuries—in WTC 7. The building had only half the number of occupants on a typical day—with approximately 4,000 occupants—at the times the airplanes struck the towers. Occupants had recently participated in fire drills. The occupants, alerted by the attacks on WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon, began evacuating promptly. Evacuation of the building took just over an hour, and the process was complete before the collapse of the first WTC tower (WTC 2). Emergency responders provided evacuation assistance to occupants. No emergency responders were harmed in the collapse of WTC 7 because the decision to abandon all efforts to save WTC 7 was made nearly three hours before the building fell.
But for some reason they totally misrepresent what Jennings said.
Quote:
An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn’t that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder—located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7—would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
Can you tell me why they would make it look as though Jennings was saying the explosions happenend at 'the near immediate collapse' time?
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:40 am Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
I think you know what Jennings case is, he states that there was a massive explosion in WTC7 before the towers fell. Critics try and pass off what he experienced as the towers collapsing.
Well because that's a likely explanation. I could just as easily say "truthers try and pass off what he experienced as some sort of CD". Why would the CD would be started in the early morning? Why would conspirators risk an explosion before the towers even fell? Why start a CD in the morning that is planned for the late afternoon?
Jennings actually claimed that he heard explosions for all the hours he was stuck in WTC7. Are we to believe that there was a whole series of explosions in there that remain unaccounted for by other witnesses?
Quote:
Unfortunately NIST state that EVERYONE was evacuated before the towers collapsed.
It's a minor point. Is Jennings classed as an occupant or a responder?
Quote:
Can you tell me why they would make it look as though Jennings was saying the explosions happenend at 'the near immediate collapse' time?
I agree the answer given doesn't really suit the question asked. Presumably the person answering the question has not read up on the latest fashions in conspiracy theories.
As usual, all there is here is an anomaly. One witness whose timeline, or interpretation of the timeline, is askew to the vast majority. Rather like Mineta. If Jennings was slightly out on his interpretation of the timings, then the explosion he felt could have been debris striking wtc7 at the time of the first collapse.
It's a minor point. Is Jennings classed as an occupant or a responder?
What part of EVERYONE are you having trouble understanding?
Quote:
Presumably the person answering the question has not read up on the latest fashions in conspiracy theories.
Or read the witness testimony, add that to not testing any steel whatsoever from WTC7 and this investigation is looking like a real thorough investigation, would you agree?
Quote:
One witness whose timeline, or interpretation of the timeline, is askew to the vast majority.
Vast majority? Again NIST state EVERYONE was evacuated before the 1st tower fell, so i take it you are arguing with them, or making excuses for them.
Quote:
If Jennings was slightly out on his interpretation of the timings, then the explosion he felt could have been debris striking wtc7 at the time of the first collapse.
The keyword there is IF. But then again NIST state EVERYONE was evacuated before the 1st tower fell.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:11 am Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
Quote:
It's a minor point. Is Jennings classed as an occupant or a responder?
What part of EVERYONE are you having trouble understanding?
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. People were in and out of the building after evacuation. I don't see how it's relevant to anything.
As I say, the strong likelihood is that Jennings' recollections were slightly hazy. You may disagree, but I think that is the most reasonable explanation.
As I say, the strong likelihood is that Jennings' recollections were slightly hazy. You may disagree, but I think that is the most reasonable explanation.
Slightly hazy? You still haven't addressed why NIST would need to totally misrepresent what Jennings said. If this investigation was as thorough as we are led to believe surely witness testimony would have been studied, unless of course any evidence of WTC7 sustaining damage BEFORE the towers fell had to be swept under the carpet.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject:
Northern Monkey wrote:
Quote:
As I say, the strong likelihood is that Jennings' recollections were slightly hazy. You may disagree, but I think that is the most reasonable explanation.
Slightly hazy? You still haven't addressed why NIST would need to totally misrepresent what Jennings said. If this investigation was as thorough as we are led to believe surely witness testimony would have been studied, unless of course any evidence of WTC7 sustaining damage BEFORE the towers fell had to be swept under the carpet.
There's no evidence that NIST are sweeping anything under the carpet. You may not like the quality of their work, but to accuse them of being part of a conspiracy requires evidence. It is not sufficient to simply repeat accusations. In fact I think it is morally wrong, and quite disgraceful.
In terms of their response to witness accounts, I cannot categorically say which accounts they have or have not heard. The Barry Jennings interview released through Alex Jones for example is way outside any mainstream spheres - it is an interview which he asked not to be broadcast, and said later misrepresented his position, but the interviewers decided to release it against his will anyway. It is certainly not witness 'testimony', it is a viral internet video.
My reading of that situation, based on the BBC programme that later referred to parts of it, is that Jennings was unsure of his account, was embarrassed by that interview, and didn't stand by what was said in it. The accounts that I have seen from him seem generally vague - he is never sure on what floor what happened, and certainly some of his account is very questionable - he seems to measure tower collapses by which direction firemen ran at one time or another. I don't think it's very reliable, and Jennings' attempts to backtrack on what he had said supports that interpretation.
In terms of the question asked to NIST, if it was asked in those exact terms ('An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn’t that evidence that there was an explosion? ') it is way too vague a question for anyone to respond with any more than a general statement. Which is what was done in that NIST q and a. A more specific question with actual quotes from Jennings might have given them a vague clue what it was referring to.
In my opinion your whole approach here amounts to a whole lot of nothing. If you think some of what Jennings said is crucial, then the ball is in the court of those who believe that to prove something. However I think accusing NIST of suppressing or misrepresenting something they may not even be properly aware of is ludicrous in the extreme.
And whatever NIST have said or not said, Jennings accounts of pre-collapse explosions are utterly vague and certainly not conclusive to any degree. And any explosions at that time of the day fail any sort of application of critical reasoning. I consider it a total dead end.
This has been used by debunkers as evidence that Building 7 was heavily damaged by falling debris from the Towers. Does this look like damage caused by falling debris? Nope, it’s too neat, too clean, and too ‘all-the-way-down’. Falling debris doesn’t cause damage like this, nor does explosives.
So, what could cause a straight, clean, all-the-way-down cut in Building 7? The evidence best fits a focused beam of energy going straight downwards on a single path. What does that leave us with?
Evidence of TV-FAKERY hiding the exotic weapons (micro-nukes/directed energy weapons) used in NYC on 9/11
In recent articles on the destruction of the WTC, people have mentioned that the demolition method of WTC 7 has appeared to be conventional. The reason being that the videos do not show the massive outward explosions seen during the exotic molecular dissociation display of destruction during the demise of WTC 1 & 2. The fact that much of WTC 1 and 2 was vaporized and is not is it’s own rubble is also a factor in this assumption because the WTC 7 demolition shows numerous ‘pancaked’ floors remaining, however new light may have been shed on the argument of the WTC 7 demolition.
As a precaution it is necessary to mention that with extensive research into 9/11 it is safe to say that many photos and videos released of all the 9/11 sky scraper ‘collapses’ have been altered. It is easy to assume this because, it is a widely accepted fact among researchers that the videos of the two ‘plane hits’ have been altered and computer generated along with the backgrounds and foregrounds of the city scape on 9/11. This may have been to hide whatever method was used to destroy the buildings. So, it is safe to assume that the perps would use this media fakery to cover up the collapses themselves. With that being said,
Notice the central structure falls down all the way from the top from the very onset of the demolition, with the sides collapsing on top at the end. Also notice how the smoke plumes start after the building has fully hit the ground. This, in comparison to the WTC7, which had much larger plumes of smoke flowing certainly at the start of the demolition and perhaps even before.
The most striking difference is perhaps the near perfect, ensemble of sliding down upper floors of the WTC 7 building. Leaving out the initial collapse of the penthouse, and what looks like an apparent ‘kinking’ of the top left area of the WTC 7 (what looks like evidence of video tampering)
An almost uniform, perfectly even collapse is viewed. Completely flush.
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 You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
