Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Truth, Censorship, conspiracy theory, Controlled Demolition, False Flag, Gulf of Tonkin, inside job, jesse ventura, JFK, NIST, richard gage, State Sponsored Terrorism, steven jones, truth movement, Vietnam, War Crimes, wtc-7 | Tags: the view
Huffington Post Censors Ventura About 9/11
Jesse Ventura wrote an article about 9/11 on the Huffington Post that quickly disappeared off the website leaving a message Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post. Here is what they didn’t want you to see.:
“WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?
You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 447 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.
This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:
Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.” [i]
Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”
Jesse Ventura on The View – (03/10/2010)
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 engineers, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Physics, 9/11 planes, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, al-qaeda, bin laden, Controlled Demolition, FBI, FDNY, first responders, George Bush, Ground Zero, kevin ryan, madrid, neocons, New York, NIST, NYPD, Official 9/11 Theory, Pancake Theory, spain, steven jones, War On Terror, windsor building, World Trade Center | Tags: frank de martini, underwriters laboratory, underwriters labs
Zero Investigation Into 9/11 (movie)
Filed under: 1984, 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Controlled Demolition, FEMA, NIST, orwell, Torture, World Trade Center, wtc-7 | Tags: milgram obedience experiment 1963, stanley milgram
Psychology & WTC7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXPIfBkzhs
NIST Concludes “Fire” Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had “low probability” of Knocking Down Tower
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/wtc-7-report-response-round-up.html
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 commission, 9/11 commission report, 9/11 demolition countdown, 9/11 engineers, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Physics, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, BBC, BBC foreknowledge, CNN, Controlled Demolition, FEMA, first responders, Ground Zero, kevin ryan, Media, New York, NIST, Official 9/11 Theory, Pancake Theory, pre-knowledge, steven jones, thermite, World Trade Center, wtc-7 | Tags: Danny Jowenko, Dr. David L. Griscom, Dr. James Quintiere, evaporated steel, Graham John Inman, heat transport, iron oxide, Kamal S. Obeid, molten metal, peer review, steel, steven e. jones, sulfur, thermal expansion, thermate, UL tested steel
Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel
George Washington’s Blog
August 20, 2008
The Government’s side (ever changing)
9/11 truth’s side
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:
WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very least – we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.
In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.
Freefall Speed
NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.
Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?
Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings
NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.
No Explosive Sounds
NIST also said:
“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.”
Oh, really?
What about this, this, this, this, this and this?
Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don’t necessarily make the same loud “booms” that dynamite make.
High-Tech Explosive Residues
And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?
Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel
And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?
And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.
Pre-Knowledge
And why didn’t NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?
Experts
And why didn’t NIST address what these experts say?:
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).
- Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
- Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
- A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 22, 2008
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?
This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.
Which is the more likely scenario – that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” – or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?
NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.
We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.
The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.
“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”
“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.
Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.
“FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”
The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.
NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.
As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”
BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture UVSC
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/B..oses_theory_on_0821.html
NIST Claims Fires Brought Down WTC-7
http://www.nytimes.com/2008..em=&pagewanted=print
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Physics, 9/11 survivors, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, Barack Obama, boston, Chris Matthews, Ground Zero, Media, NIST, obama, rhode island, Saudi Arabia, Truth Action, We Are Change, William Rodriguez, World Trade Center, wtc-7 | Tags: freedom tower
Chris Matthews: William Rodriguez is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17211
Obama Fanatics Slam Author For Questioning 9/11
http://www.prisonplanet.com/oba…or-for-questioning-911.html
WTC Memorial To Cost $1 Billion
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/08/world_trade_center_memorial_an.html
U.S. court rules Saudi Arabia immune in 9/11 case
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1448612320080814
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Families, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Truth, barry jennings, BBC, Britain, Controlled Demolition, Dennis Kucinich, Europe, european union, fealgood foundation, FEMA, fresh kills landfill, kevin ryan, larry silverstein, Loose Change, New York, NIST, smear campaign, United Kingdom, We Are Change, World Trade Center, wtc-7 | Tags: Dr. Michio Kaku
BBC Hit Piece Edits Silverstein Comment In Dirty Tricks Scam
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 8, 2008
The BBC’s embarrassing attempt to dig itself out of a hole that keeps getting deeper was again exemplified during their latest yellow journalism hit piece on 9/11 truth, in which they played Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” comment but edited out the most important part of the statement, and in doing so changed its context altogether.
An army of informed truth activists are almost tripping over each other to point out the gargantuan number of errors, ad hominem smear tactics, bias and shoddy investigative techniques displayed in the program which aired Sunday in the UK.
Just one such example concerns WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s infamous “pull it” comment which can be viewed in its entirety below with other clips included for context in confirming that the term “pull it” is industry jargon for deliberately demolishing a building.
However, in the BBC’s attempt to convince the viewer that “pull it” meant to withdraw firefighters from the building, despite the fact that according to NIST’s WTC collapse lead investigator Shyam Sunder, “There was no firefighting in WTC 7,” and additionally the FEMA report, which stated “No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY,” the editors carefully snipped out the last portion of Silverstein’s comments where he states, “and then we watched the building collapse.”
Cycle through to 20 minutes into the clip to spot the edit.
By deliberately removing “and then we watched the building collapse,” the BBC has performed a hatchet job on the whole context of the statement by censoring the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was a consequence of the decision to “pull” the building.
The BBC’s zealous efforts to redeem its name by ceaselessly attacking the 9/11 truth movement accelerated after the broadcaster was shamed when footage from 9/11 emerged of their correspondent Jane Standley reporting that WTC 7 had collapsed even as it remained standing in the shot behind her head.
Questions as to how this could have happened and allegations that news corporations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, were being fed a script on the day of 9/11 as it unfolded were met with hostility, and the BBC claimed it had “lost” the tape.
The tape was miraculously “discovered” again on the eve of the broadcast of their latest hit piece but the footage was not shown in the program, presumably to avoid further embarrassment.
Judge dismisses case over 9/11 remains
Reuters
July 7, 2008
A U.S. judge on Monday dismissed a case brought by families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks who said the city denied proper burials by sending debris containing possible human remains to a garbage dump.
The lawsuit, filed in 2005 by a group called WTC Families for a Proper Burial, sought to have the estimated 1.2 million to 1.8 million tons of rubble originally from the World Trade Center site transferred out of the Fresh Kills landfill located on New York’s borough of Staten Island.
The families said the city should move the residue that had been finely sifted multiple times to a more suitable location and have a cemetery created.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, saying the city’s decisions about where to off-load the debris “were difficult and complicated,” found the city had “acted responsibly” in bringing about a “swift and efficient recovery from the terrorists’ attack.”
“Plaintiffs have no property right in an undifferentiated, unidentifiable mass of dirt that may or may not contain the remains of plaintiffs’ loved ones,” he said.
There are no New York laws that require burying the debris in a different location, he said, “however worthy the citizen and however honorable the deceased.”
About 1,100 out of the 2,749 people killed at the World Trade Center site perished without leaving a trace. Full bodies were recovered for only 292 victims and partial remains for 1,357, sometimes only a fragment of a bone, the ruling noted.
Almost immediately after the attacks, all visible human remains were removed from the debris, bagged and taken to collecting points.
Victims’ families argued that debris surrounding some remains would have contained other bone fragments and remains.
The president of the WTC Families, Diane Horning, lost her son, Matthew Horning, in the attacks. His wallet and a piece of his occipital bone were recovered from debris at Fresh Kills.
Hellerstein concluding his ruling by suggesting a “beautiful nature preserve” and memorial at the garbage site and said the families of victims “have suffered a wrong for which there can be no remedy.”
“No matter the authority and power of this court, it cannot bring back the loved ones lost, and it cannot bring peace to the plaintiffs or surcease to society’s collective grief around the events of September 11, 2001.”
First responders who suffer and Dennis Kucinich – Spoke up
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=10525
The BBC’s Atrocious Effort to Debunk 9/11 Truth
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-bbcs-..unk-911-truth.html
WeAreChange Boston Questions Dr. Michio Kaku about 9/11
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16516
BBC keeps digging, the hole gets bigger
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16540
1-Sentence Debunking of NIST’S Report on WTC 7
http://georgewashington.blogspot.co..bunking-of-nists-report-on.html
“Shockingly Calm”: The Phone Calls From the Planes on 9/11
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16498
No BBC, WTC 7 Did Not Collapse “Due To Fire” & The Final 9/11 Mystery Is Not Solved
http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-..l-911-mystery-is-not-solved.html
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan
http://911blogger.com/node/16497
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Physics, 9/11 survivors, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, Alex Jones, BBC, bilderberg, christy todd whitman, Controlled Demolition, EPA, first responders, global elite, global government, Globalism, health and environment, Hillary Clinton, New World Order, New York, NIST, Rudy Giuliani, Truth Action, We Are Change, World Trade Center, wtc-7
A Message from the New World Order to Alex Jones (Truth Rising Trailer)
9/11 Hero Speaks Out For Help
TRUTH RISING: The 9/11 Chronicles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/..and_conspiracies_2.html
Leaked NIST Docs: “Unusual” Event Before Collapse Of WTC- 7
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062508_unusual_event.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200806..aj8Nn95Kys0NUE
City Questions 9/11 Workers’ Claims of Illness
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/..=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 demolition countdown, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, BBC, BBC foreknowledge, Britain, Controlled Demolition, Europe, Jane Standley, kevin mcpadden, larry silverstein, NIST, Uncategorized, United Kingdom, We Are Change, World Trade Center, wtc-7
BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a ’Conspiracy’
We Are Change UK Question former BBC Report Phil Hayton– who is ’amazed’ that such a ’significant’ event has no official explanation
Aaron Dykes
Prison Planet
April 25, 2008
Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance.
Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.
“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers.
Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”
“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ
We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ’cock-up.’
“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded.
On a previous occasion, We Are Change UK reporters contacted Jane Standley by phone about the telling incident. Standley, unlike Hayton, was not surprised by the revelation, but became uncomfortable and hurriedly ended the conversation, only commenting that she had been “harassed” about the situation already.
Surely, it is clear that neither Standley nor Hayton were ’in on a conspiracy’– rather they were used and fed information. However, Hayton seems willing to admit it while Standley has thus far been unable to answer for the suspicious incident ahead of the unexplained collapse.
The suspicion surrounding early media reporting of WTC7’s collapse– which Aaron Brown of CNN also announced– only exacerbates the demolition apparent that many police, fire fighters and other emergency workers were told about in advance and which many other news anchors described as being like a ’deliberately destroyed’ building.
Further, WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein said that the building was “pulled” and rescue worker Kevin McPadden has reported hearing a countdown to Building 7’s demolition.
Filed under: 2008 Election, 9/11, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, GOP, Ground Zero, Iowa, iowa caucus, New Hampshire, New York, NIST, republican caucus, Rudy Giuliani, sibel edmonds, World Trade Center, wtc-7
The Huffington Post
January 6, 2007 Finishing a disappointing sixth in the Iowa caucus and staring down a similarly poor result in New Hampshire, Rudy Giuliani has yet another problem on his hand.
The protest coincides with and promotes a new short video by Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films, which uses the testimony of these 9/11 workers to detail the dangerous conditions and serious illnesses encountered at the recovery site.
Still today, many suffer from violent coughs, severe asthma, and pulmonary and mental health issues. Giuliani, the workers note, is not responsible for their sicknesses, but he did not sufficiently warn about the hazards at the site and, more importantly, has done next to nothing to help the thousands who are suffering from recovery-related ailments.
“The hypocrisy of running a campaign on a 9/11 agenda and you have these people still dying and becoming much sicker then they were a year or two years prior is really insulting,” Alex Sanchex, a janitorial worker, says in the film.
Greenwald told the Huffington Post: “These first responders are not blaming Rudy for being sick, they are asking why he has done nothing to help them since they got sick. They want to meet with him and ask what he is going to do to help them. They have tried to call and meet with him. Nothing. He who is Mr. 9.11 has abandoned the real heroes of 9/11.”
More than 2,000 New York City firefighters have been treated for serious respiratory problems following their work at the World Trade Center recovery site. Toxic dust from that area has been directly linked to sarcoidosis, a debilitating disease that FDNY members now develop at five times the rate they had previous to working around the toxins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-VUTjM0Ko
Following the Democrats takeover of Congress in 2006, hearings were held to determine what went wrong in exposing these firefighters to such porous conditions. Much blame was laid at the feat of the then-EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman. Subsequently, several investigations have called into question the extent of Giuliani’s knowledge and handling of the hazardous 9/11 site.
According to the New York Times, in the aftermath of 9/11 Giuliani “seized control and largely limited the influence of experienced federal agencies” during the clean up effort, but “never meaningfully enforced federal requirements that those at the site wear respirators.” Moreover, the paper added, Guiliani “warned companies working on the pile that they would face penalties or be fired if work slowed.”
But what has drawn the ire of the recovery workers is not what Giuliani did in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11, but rather how he has seemingly forsaken their plight in favor of focusing on his business and political careers. Giuliani, Greenwald notes, has offered no assistance to other New York elected officials in efforts to lobby the federal government for funds for victim treatment. He won’t even meet with the victims themselves.
“The fact of ignoring those who sacrificed the most while he profits and profiteers from 9/11 is a scandal and is disgusting,” the filmmaker said.
The remarks echoed those made in the film by Mike McCormack, a USAF Auxiliary Civil Air Patrolman: “After he left office, you may have to turn in your key to the city. But I don’t believe turning in your moral compass and responsibility to people who trust you. That shouldn’t fall at the wayside.”
This is the third Giuliani movie made by Greenwald and Brave New Films. The first looked at Giuliani’s decision to put New York’s terrorist response center in the World Trace Center complex – a known and obvious terrorist target. The second focused on Giulaini’s failures to upgrade the faulty radios used by FDNY members on 9/11.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5192
WTC-7 NIST Report Coming In August 08
http://www.bloggernews.net/112871
Danish 9/11 truth in MSM with subtitles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jze33vZCpwo
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 commission, 9/11 engineers, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Families, 9/11 Financiers, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 hijackers, 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Physics, 9/11 survivors, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 wargames, Able Danger, al-qaeda, BBC, BBC foreknowledge, bin laden, Bin Laden Tapes, christy todd whitman, CIA, Condoleezza Rice, Controlled Demolition, Department of Defense, Dick Cheney, DoD, Donald Rumsfeld, False Flag, FBI, George Bush, George Tenent, inside job, ISI, Loose Change, Military, Mineta Testemony, mohammed atta, Mystery Plane, New York, NIST, NORAD, Official 9/11 Theory, Pentagon, Rudy Giuliani, secret service, State Sponsored Terrorism, thomas kean, war games, Washington D.C., White House, World Trade Center, wtc-7
Loose Change Final Cut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&hl=en
Filed under: 9/11 Mysteries, 9/11 Truth, BBC foreknowledge, Controlled Demolition, Fox News, george carlin, larry silverstein, mark ruffalo, martin sheen, NIST, NORAD, Official 9/11 Theory, Pancake Theory, Propaganda, We Are Change, World Trade Center, wtc-7
Martin Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Follows in footsteps of son Charlie Sheen, highlights implausible collapse of WTC 7, asks why building was “rigged”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
October 29, 2007
Actor Martin Sheen questioned the official 9/11 story, as well as the collapse of Building 7 and Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” comment during an anti-war march this past weekend in Los Angeles, saying that recent revelations about the attacks had caused him to have doubts.
Sheen was interviewed by We Are Change L.A. along with fellow actor Mark Ruffalo during an event hosted by the ANSWER Coalition at which around 20,000 people attended.
Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winning Martin Sheen, star of blockbuster films like Apocalypse Now and hit series The West Wing, follows in the footsteps of his son Charlie Sheen, who publicly spoke of his doubts about the official 9/11 story back in March 2006.
Martin Sheen said that he was dubious about questioning the official story until his son introduced him to new information about the anomalies of what happened on that day.
“Up until last year, I was very dubious,” said Sheen, “I did not want to believe that my government could possibly be involved in such a thing, I could not live in a country that I thought could do that – that would be the ultimate betrayal,” he added.
“However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 – how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?” said Sheen.
Sheen also questioned the comments of Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, who told a September 2002 documentary that the decision was made to “pull” Building 7, a demolition industry term for the deliberate implosion of a structure.
“How convenient,” said Sheen, “When did they rig that building? That’s the most interesting question and I have not received a satisfactory answer – nobody could give me an answer to how you rig the building – what a coincidence – two weeks prior and then bring it down on the day, that is the one thing that I have not got a sensible answer about from anyone,” he concluded.
Sheen also stated that NORAD’s failure to follow its standard operating procedure on 9/11 was “something to wonder about”.
Watch the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUxplGLnT4
Click here to listen to the audio MP3.
Though Fox News and other attack dogs are likely to seize upon Sheen’s comments and run hit pieces, the National Institute of Standards and Technology itself had to admit recently that the total collapse of the twin towers at free fall speed could not be explained.
NIST also promised to investigate whether explosive devices were involved in the collapse of Building 7 in August last year.
The issue of Building 7 stoked controversy earlier this year when archive footage from news networks including BBC and CNN emerged that showed correspondents reporting the collapse the 47-story skyscraper over 20 minutes before it fell, leading some to charge that people with foreknowledge of the collapse were feeding networks a script as the events of 9/11 unfolded.
Actor Ruffalo “Baffled” At Collapse Of Twin Towers
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/301007_ruffalo_baffled.htm
George Carlin Questions “Received Reality” Of 9/11 Story
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articl…91007_carlin_questions.htm
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Physics, Controlled Demolition, NIST, World Trade Center, wtc-7
NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
October 16, 2007
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation” proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.
In addition, NIST’s own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.
“NIST’S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls “collapse initiation” — the loss of several floors’ vertical support,” writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for “collapse initiation”–the failure of a few floors.”
“But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don’t. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment–a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways–the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.”
“Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST’s ridiculous “initiation” scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon,” concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.
In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building’s collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.
In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.
Quintiere said NIST’s conclusions were “questionable”, that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.
Will DOJ Look into the First Death of a U.S. 9/11 Researcher?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20071014221652399
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 demolition countdown, 9/11 engineers, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Physics, 9/11 survivors, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, Controlled Demolition, FEMA, kevin mcpadden, larry silverstein, NIST, World Trade Center, wtc-7
The Third Tower
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5712953049463929480
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 demolition countdown, 9/11 Explosions, 9/11 Firefighters, 9/11 Truth, 9/11 workers, Air Force, Alex Jones, Controlled Demolition, FEMA, Ground Zero, larry silverstein, Loose Change, NIST, Rudy Giuliani, We Are Change, World Trade Center, wtc-7
9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
September 13, 2007
On the Friday beforeA 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT’s and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be “brought down”.
Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be “brought down” and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.
In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.
Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.
In a speech given at this week’s 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.
Watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g
“While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there – they got the vibe that something was coming down,” said McPadden.
“We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio – I couldn’t hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed – whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed – and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.”
“But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look – like just run for your life – because he didn’t want to bring it on his conscience – he didn’t want to go to his grave with that – and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together,” said McPadden.
McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.
McPadden’s account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.
The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to “blow up.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ
In June it was revealed that an individual who had a high level security clearance and was stationed in the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 witnessed explosions and damage to the lobby of the building before either twin tower had collapsed.
The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.
To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.
Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.
Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?
We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe , or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.
This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.
Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Alan Miller
Op Ed News
August 21, 2007
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
“I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. …
“All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? …
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? …
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn’t NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? …
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?”
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/… ]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?cPath=…
For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
noworldsystem.com 