Posted by willyloman on August 22, 2008
by Scott Creighton
Shyam Sunder of NIST says that there was no explosive sound loud enough to have been an explosion that could have taken out one of these columns. Here is a recording of 2 of them:
(following text from the NIST press release available here. )
“The NIST team found no evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse.”
Because they didn’t LOOK. (NIST admitted they NEVER TESTED FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE. “NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”)
“Our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 dbs, a half a mile away. That (could) have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or the witnesses we have talked to.” Shyam Sunder.
Perhaps Mr. Sunder never saw this video. Then again, maybe he is just full of shit. Watch his shifting eyes when he talks about “no video recordings of such explosions” and you decide which it is.
Posted by willyloman on August 22, 2008
by Scott Creighton
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 residue at the WTC site.
Starting on page 22 of NIST’s report, Chapter 3.3 Hypothetical Blast Scenarios, NIST dedicates only 2 pages (of the reports 110) to the investigation of whether or not controlled 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 “expected sound” simulation, is the ONLY evidence that NIST provides 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 controlled 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 scenario” simulations on their own computer assisted demolition program. CDI’s records should be seized immediately 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 agencies and 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.