Just caught this on one of my local "conspiracy" sites.
"FEMA's work has been continued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has again postponed its report on WTC-7, this time until 2007. NIST is now saying that it is also investigating the hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse. Interviewed in the March 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator, summed up the present state of the investigation:
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
So, now we have to wait till 2007 for them to tell us those bastards blew the building up. What a surprise...
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If you are so damn sure that
December 23, 2006 - 22:34 ET by UnsaneIf you are so damn sure that WTC 7, or any of the WTC buildings were destroyed by anyone else or anything else except the planes that flew into the buildings, the following questions should be a SNAP for you:
1) How much explosive material was used to bring down the towers?
2) How was it placed in the building?
3) How much was used in what locations?
4) How long did this process take?
5) How many people were involved in that effort?
6) Where were they procured from? (That big an order for explosives had to attract attention and could not escape notice...)
7) Where were they stored before being staged (set up for application)?
8) Where did the staging take place?
9) How were those staged explosives transported to the towers and when?
10) What steps were taken to ensure no one noticed what was going on?
11) How were these explosives transported to the storage location?
12) How many transportation assets were used to accomplish this?
13) What modes of transport were used in all cases transport was needed?
14) Who handled these transportation arrangements?
15) You have to get clearances to transport these explosives no matter what mode is being used. Who secured them and with whom?
16) How long did it take to execute the planning for this operation?
17) When was the green light given for the go-ahead?
18) How long did it take to procure, store, stage, and deploy the explosives?
19) What steps were taken to ensure secrecy?
20) How on earth could you hide ALL OF THIS ACTIVITY from innocent onlookers, observers and passers-by at all stages of the conspiracy?
Well?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
If you are so damn sure that
December 24, 2006 - 23:28 ET by ThoughtPoliceIf you are so damn sure that WTC 7, or any of the WTC buildings were destroyed by anyone else or anything else except the planes that flew into the buildings, the following questions should be a SNAP for you
Hmm, I can't quite follow your grammatical structure. In fact, it makes no sense. But, let me see if I can break this down. So in your statement of "WTC 7, or any of the WTC buildings" are you saying that WTC 7 was hit by a plane? Because, as you know, I'm assuming, it wasn't.
Second, your now going back to your old "but what about all of my questions that no one except who did it can answer!" Actually, from my original post, there was NO speculation; only mentioning what the guy studying the collapse said, so maybe you should ask him?
WTC-7 was much more heavily d
December 25, 2006 - 00:01 ET by NL207WTC-7 was much more heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC-1 than you conspiracists would let on. The photos in this link and the quotes of firefighters who entered and observed WTC-7 after it was damaged and before it collapsed. I quote:
"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. "
A hole, 20 stories tall? Other observations indicate the 25% of the aggregate supporting structure of the entire building were destroyed all on the south side. The building still stood for over 6 hours after WTC1 fell despite the 6 or 7 uncontrolled fires that burned within it.
Of course, you will simply dismiss all of this since it is incompatible with your mental illness. That's too bad, because yopu need a dose of reality. As far as I m concerned, you are little more than public enemy distracting debate away from the much more serious threat of the Islamic Jihadists who committed the acts we are discussing here.
Ohhh Riiightt....How could I
December 25, 2006 - 13:46 ET by ThoughtPoliceOhhh Riiightt....How could I forget about the "blazing" fires and the 20 story damage to the side of the building. Wait, I mean how could the NIST scientists forget? Forget ye not, that THEY are the ones that have been studying this for several years; not you or me or anyone else. Have they come out and said "Well duh, look at these fires and this hole in the side; thats what brought the building down!" I DON'T THINK SO!
In fact, once again, I am only saying what the scientists are now saying. So if it was so simple they would have come out a long time ago. However, they can't. If they did they would have to explain how a 47 story building fell in appx. 6.5 seconds (around speed of gravity) with little to no resistance from the rest of the building. Oh yea, you "coincidence" theorists always seem to forget about that.
Keep tryin' NL...
And succeeding ... You don't
December 25, 2006 - 18:29 ET by NL207And succeeding ...
You don't think so? You used one too many words. You simply don't think.
There are **NO** responsible scientists who suggest the ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7 was anything other than the result of damage the structure sustained from WTC1 collapse debris. Your original link is a conspiracy theory crackpot site. The actual NIST documents do not suggest that there is any credible evidence explosives were in anyway involved in the WTC7 collapse. In fact, you conspiracy kooks do not even recognize the WTC7 collapse took longer than 6.5 seconds. The collapse occurred in stages and can be seen clearly in films of the event when first the east and then the west equipment penthouses sequentially dissappeared from the roof of WTC7 as the collapse began. The collapse of these two penthouses is clear proof of internal structural failure of the building before the roof began to fall. These films show the collapse took 8.2 seconds if measured from the collapse of the east penthouse and are part of the reference material for this.
You and your crackpot friends are once more shown to be factually incorrect. The collapse took 1.7 seconds longer at least than you claim. I will go so far as to claim this discrepancy is part of a growing pattern of evidence seen here on NB that you personally are a delusional nut case.
Hate to say this, but WTC 7 w
December 25, 2006 - 02:40 ET by UnsaneHate to say this, but WTC 7 would STILL be standing if the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 never did. Now, answer my questions, if you are so damn sure you are right and have all the answers.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)