Question: Why "must" the absurd WTC 7 Official Story be defended?

I'm puzzled why the Gov't (and associated advocates) would bother to continue promoting the absurd idea that WTC 7 collapsed as the result of several fires in corners of the building. There's never been an allegation that any of Wacky Caveman Osama's coke snortin' "radical" Islamic jeehaws had anything to do with bringing it down, so I don't understand why they won't just say: "A decision was made to deliberately bring down WTC 7 with explosives...to eliminate any possibility of further loss of life, blah blah blah."

What's the purpose of adamantly clinging to an indefensible theory that is becoming little more than a big joke?

I suspect they don't want to have to prove that WTC 7 HAD to be demolished before those papers could be rescued.

As a nonengineer, I can't evaluate the credibility of the official explanation or the MIHOP explanation.

One thing I would find more compelling for any of the three WTC buildings would be modelling the collapses on architectural or civil engineering software. Then the results could be distributed for discussion without necessarily attacking any theory as to the actual cause. Much easier to get publicity that way -- present it as a mystery.

I would like to see this issue stay alive. If there was some sort of clandestine activity, it should come out.

...others "would bother to continue promoting the absurd idea that WTC 7 collapsed as the result of" demolition charges and couldn't possibly have collapsed from fires burning in a skyscraper for seven hours without attempts to controll them (which, by merest coincidence, ALSO never happened previously).

Because the evidence they've seen seems reasonable to them, and they don't think it supports the counter-claims.

"others 'would bother to continue promoting the absurd idea that WTC 7 collapsed as the result of' demolition charges and couldn't possibly have collapsed from fires burning in a skyscraper for seven hours without attempts to controll them (which, by merest coincidence, ALSO never happened previously)."

No skyscraper had fires burning for seven hours before? Do you have a link verifying that?

Perhaps you could also explain why WTC 7 collapsed, assuming it is an "absurd" idea that demolition charges were set and used.

http://wtc.nist.gov

The investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing.

Posting a link isn't making an argument. Can you defend your statement?

Here's my statement:

The investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing.

At the link http://wtc.nist.gov , you'll find the official site of the National Institute of Science and Technology's investigation into the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. A December 2003 press release about the investigation can be found here.

In it is the following statement:

“Since our interim technical report in May, the WTC investigation has achieved a number of milestones critical to its successful completion next fall," Bement said.

The report is dated December 2, 2003, making next fall the fall of 2004, seven months in the future from now.

Therefore, the investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing. Thank you for this opportunity to defend my statement.

There are several PDF files on the current state of the investigation, but the most current public update can be found at http://wtc.nist.gov . It's the fifth link down after Key News and Updates, titled Public Update on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. It's actually quite well written and informative.

Boloboffin, sorry I confused you with JHB in the thread when I asked you to defend your statement.

Still, why are you sure that NIST is doing a serious job with the investigation? The newspaper reports I've seen have indicated that NIST is merely interviewing witnesses. They're not examining evidence--certainly, not the documentary evidence that 911 researchers look at.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=6512&mesg_id=6662&page=

The above post in the NIST thread is an excerpt from their latest public update on the case. As you can see, the scope of their investigation includes interviewing witness, but they are also doing scientific tests in eight different projects. They're looking at everything from metallurgical tests to evacuation procedures.

911 researchers have nothing on the NIST study. In fact, NIST has assembled an incredible library of video clips and photograpic evidence of the day. The database now contains 6,194 photographs representing more than 185 photographers and 5,726 digitized video clips from 150 hours of videotape representing more than 20 individuals, news organizations, and documentaries. I don't think even Anablep, that intrepid photo hound, had a twentieth of what NIST has.

The investigation is on schedule and the conclusions are due to be released in late August of this year. It was a two year project, and only in December did NIST finally say it had sufficient evidence. Now it's a matter of letting projects finish their work, and sharing the information with the other projects as necessary. It won't be long now.

But I wouldn't put any hope in a controlled demolition scenario being considered. If that were the case, there would have been a project designated to study the effects of maintaining explosives in buildings. There's not a hint of a word that would lend itself to NIST investigating a controlled demolition. They are keeping tight-lipped about the probable collapse scenarios that they are studying, though, because a number of insurance claims and potential lawsuits hinge on the results. But even so, you can look at the samples, both from WTC rubble and samples of specification, and see where the investigation is looking. No one's looking at explosives.

Quote: "I wouldn't put any hope in a controlled demolition scenario being considered." end quote.

Why?

Long established protocols for the investigation of a structural collapse ALWAYS include subversive explosive demolition.

NIST isn't eliminating ANY protocol ... NIST has received ALL available reports ... NIST awaiting more ... AND ... FYI: controlled demolition has been ruled out in all investigations to date.

Follow the money ... look ... see who got WTC grants ... can't collect if the established protocols are ignored!!

http://wtc.nist.gov

They are currently accepting papers for a public hearing on the WTC collapses February 12. The deadline for papers is only a week or so, though, so you'd better get busy, Abe! They're a bunch of impartitial, non-partisan scientists, so they're quite open to looking at any real evidence that you have.

Anyone else: you'll find out the current state of the WTC investigation by clicking on the link above.

The question relates to why the Gov't (and its advocates) is adamantly clinging to the absurd notion that WTC 7 collapsed as the result of small fires in the corners of several floors of the building.

My own belief is that they feel they have to because they can't afford for it to become common knowledge that WTC 7 was imploded, lest more people begin to realize that WTC 1 & 2 were also imploded.

The implosion of WTC 7 benefited a lot of people; some financially (including Mr. Silverstein, who certainly did), and others for different reasons.

It has everything to do with the fate of WTC 7.

I'm puzzled why the Gov't (and associated advocates) would bother to continue promoting the absurd idea that WTC 7 collapsed as the result of several fires in corners of the building.

Fires in the corners collapsed WTC 7? Huh? I've heard of no one saying that. Except you.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your story went from just "fires in the corners..." to a "small fires in the corners.." in just one post. Can I expect the story to change into a "birthday candle burned for a few moments and the whole building collapsed" in your response.

Abe, this constant silly spinning has gotten old.

WTC 7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. The fires in the building were confined to the corners of it. If they had been fierce enough to cause the building to collapse, it would not have come straight down.

All of the PR spinning in the world of H & N, the Rendon Group and whoever else is doing it, can't change what happened to WTC 7.

They would be better off just acknowledging the truth. They could still vigorously defend and promote the "Wacky Cave Man" Conspiracy Theory. It might be a little harder to do, but who would have thought they could have sold the public on the lies about dumping babies out of incubators in Kuwait?

...the Rendon Group. It's not connected with a PR firm at all.

It's about scientists gathering the evidence and examining it thoroughly without bias.

Im sure you've seen this but let me dig it up again for ya.

"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

The NIST didn't collect shit, they are using what little was given to them which, as your beloved PDF states, is only "1/4 to 1/2 PERCENT" of the steel used in both towers.

They have enough to determine the truth of what happened.

NIST has in its possession about 236 pieces of WTC steel, representing roughly 1/4 to 1/2 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the WTC towers. Most of the pieces are of large size and include perimeter prefabricated column-spandrel panels, rectangular box beams, wide flange sections, bar joist floor sections, and channels. NIST also has in its possession several smaller pieces, such as bolts. NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of the Investigation.

Regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the Investigation. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various salvage yards where the steel was sent as the WTC site was cleared. In addition, NIST has examined additional steel stored by the Port Authority at JFK airport and has transported 12 of those specimens to NIST.

NIST has samples of all 14 grades of steel used in the exterior column-spandrel panels. It also has samples of two grades of steel used for the core columns (wide flange and built-up box columns) that represent steel used to fabricate 99 percent of the core columns. Further, it has samples of both strengths of steel that were specified for the floor joists; two strengths each for the rods and the angles that comprised the bar joists.

Please notice that "regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection." Each sizable piece of WTC structural steel had its location in the structure carved into it. This let them comb through the structural steel at the various salvage yards and focus on finding the important areas. They've recovered key structural elements. They have other sample pieces for the testing they will be and are doing. If they had needed more, they would have gotten it.

I'm wondering, how much of the steel would you have required be kept? What tests would have required your specific volume of WTC steel? What more could they be doing?

as quote: "The NIST didn't collect sh*t, they are using what little was given to them which, as your beloved PDF states, is only "1/4 to 1/2 PERCENT" of the steel used in both towers." end quote, only serve to show that there is a general ... and an abysmal ... lack of knowledge concerning the process ... protocol ... sop ... for structural collapse.

Sorry ... but without knowledge of the basic protocols ... and without knowledge of what was ... and what was not ... done on and after 9-11-01 ... where ... why ... how ... when ... and by whom ... the viewpoint is just ... just too myopic to be acceptable ... and of value.

Honestly ... NO offense intended ... but many here will be better served reading some of the old structural collapse investigations ... and then applying that knowledge to some of the newer publications concerning WTC .... Modulus Of Elasticity For World Trade Center Steel ... than dragging up and posting tired links that are ... at best ... uneducated rushes to judgement.

Some of you may remember the collapse of the Hyatt Regency Walkway in Kansas City on July 17, 1981 that killed 114 people. It was a fairly simple structural failure (compared to an entire building collapse) but the investigation lasted until November 1984 when several engineers were found guilty of gross negligence, misconduct and unprofessional conduct in the practice of engineering. This does include the time necessary for a criminal investigation, but it still took 3 and 1/2 years to complete. I wouldn't expect anything conclusive out of the NIST investigation anytime soon.

If you're interested, here's a link:
http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/hyatt/hyatt1.htm

You can also google for the relevant search words and find quite a few articles.

AZCat! For many months and through many threads I've been listing the names of SEVERAL structural collapses and suggesting that the folks here check out the reports ... to get a feel for the way an investigation is run.

I didn't say that the Nist "investigation" is connected to a PR firm;
though it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out there is a connection.

You said: All of the PR spinning in the world of H & N, the Rendon Group and whoever else is doing it, can't change what happened to WTC 7.

What happened to WTC 7 is the precise inquiry of the NIST investigation, and they are not going to agree with you about WTC 7 falling from a controlled demolition. They will have photographic evidence, scientific tests on the actual steel used to construct WTC 7, interviews with witnesses (from bystanders to firefighters), and a blow-by-blow account of how the structure of WTC 7 collapsed. It will not be a PR campaign - it will be a scientific, fully verifiable account of what happened.

And you have only your assertion that it isn't so.

probably very much appreciated by their investigators.

I don't share the same faith as you do, but I know that you've come to your opinions independently, and I respect that.

Gov't "investigations" is ... probably very much appreciated by their investigators." end quote, very clearly indicates you have not properly researched WHO the investigators are ... WHERE they are from ... WHAT their credentials are and expertise is ... WHEN they did their research ... WHY they were selected ... or HOW their research was funded. No offense intended Abe ... HONEST ... not trying to attack ... but you're really not doing your homework.

Hill & Knowlton makes a lot of money selling the public on the idea of starting wars using fake evidence and propaganda.

Does anyone know if their contract for selling the latest war is still in effect?

Also, I've tried to find out if H & K or the Rendon Group has a contract to sell the public on the "Wacky Cave Man" 9-11 Conspiracy Theory. Does anyone here have any information on this?

Would anyone here be surprised to learn that a PR firm DOES have a contract to promote and defend the Official Conspiracy Theory?

You do have evidence of this claim, do you not?

It does not say: "H & K is hereby engaged to promote and sell the idea of starting an illegal war."

If you were hoping it did, I'm sorry to have to disappoint you.

What evidence do you have of any contract whatsoever?

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-houston/2002-December/005050.html


For anyone NOT familiar with how PR firms like Hill & Knowlton and the Rendon Group are paid huge amounts of money to "assist" in propaganda campaigns like the phony incubator story used to help sell the first Golf War, google the above firms & you'll get a ton of eye-opening information regarding the "manufactured consent" produced by PR firms.

It's the Rendon Group, not Hill & Knowlton, which got $400,000 for four months work for the Pentagon.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q4/rendon.html

The Pentagon stipulates that the Rendon Group will receive $400,000 for four months of work. Details are confidential, but according to the San Jose Mercury News, Rendon will be monitoring international news media, conducting focus groups, creating a web site about the US campaign against terrorism, and recommending "ways the US military can counter disinformation and improve its own public communications."

I'm well aware of the work of PR firms in the modern world. I've got my copy of Toxic Sludge is Good for You! I don't know why you persist in misreporting information. Calling the Rendon Group "H & K" is an easily corrected mistake on your part, and yet if I try to question you on it, you doggedly cling to your original statement.

By the way, did you notice the change of description in the terms of Rendon's contract? PRWatch tells us the contract is for four months, for a total of $400,000. Your source states the contract is for $100,000 a month. Technically true, but your source doesn't make it clear that the contract ended in four months. It opens the door to a misunderstanding that the money is being paid as a monthly retainer, as the Rendon Group was paid in the first Gulf War PR campaign.

Why did your source make the change in language? Did it perhaps want to encourage this misperception? Make the Rendon Group appear as unsavory as possible? Looks like.

So to recap, Abe, you uncritically repeated a piece of propaganda here, and got the facts wrong even then! This makes me testy, because you're better than that.

You must learn to question all the sources of your information critically. All information must check in at the gate and submit to security clearances. Do you imagine that PR firms are only working for the United States Government? Do you think people who oppose the US Government are incapable of hiring them?

Just because a PR firm is telling you something doesn't make it true.
Just becasue a PR firm is telling you something doesn't make it false.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's about choices. If you want to believe this tripe;

WTC 7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. The fires in the building were confined to the corners of it. If they had been fierce enough to cause the building to collapse, it would not have come straight down.

Even though there is zero evidence to support this wacky theory, I can't change your mind.

... isn't in my vocabulary ... believe what you will ... life is about choices ... I choose to belive my eyes ... what I saw ... what I've done ... what I've read ... whom I know .. those I trust.

I didn't believe McCarthy and Cohn ... didn't believe in Spector and Ford's single bullet ... didn't believe Johnson's Tonkin Gulf story ... didn't believe Sheriff Arena's story about Ted Kennedy ...

I believe the WTC didn't succumb to explosives ... I believe in the reports I've read and in the ongoing research ... I have made my choice ... you can have yours ...

Geez...just wait a second..I'll flip a coin.

Our friend Van OudeDagen <sorry, /ridicule> keeps repeating the same empty formulas over and over: very strict policies and procedures were followed at every stage of the investigation.
Does he ever offer us anything to support that contention, any specific fact beyond his own assertion? Yet he demands very high standards of evidence for others:

"... very clearly indicates you have not properly researched WHO the investigators are ... WHERE they are from ... WHAT their credentials are and expertise is ... WHEN they did their research ... WHY they were selected ... or HOW their research was funded. No offense intended Abe ... HONEST ... not trying to attack ... but you're really not doing your homework."

"Sorry ... but without knowledge of the basic protocols ... and without knowledge of what was ... and what was not ... done on and after 9-11-01 ... where ... why ... how ... when ... and by whom ... the viewpoint is just ... just too myopic to be acceptable ... and of value."


Do these strict protocols call for the automatic disposal of 99+% of the evidence almost sight unseen (unless someone knows of a secret record of such examination that FEMA and NIST have not made public), or is that left to the discretion of the individual investigators? Should we really just accept without question NIST's assertion that "NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of the Investigation." A touching note of faith given the magnitude and importance of the disaster. Perhaps it depends on how you define "the purposes of the Investigation."

As I recall we were a good deal meticulous in the reconstruction of some much smaller disasters, flight 800 for example, or even any number of bridge collapses that were examined by means of full scale reconstruction of the original. Why did the WTC site deserve any less?

WTC-7 came down straight as if it was on rails, at an almost constant speed, kind of a single-use elevator. If that's not controlled I don't know what is.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT_3.swf


Yet there is no evidence I have seen in the NIST progress report (please correct me if I'm wrong: http://wtc.nist.gov/ ) of any planned or ongoing investigation of the collapse of WTC-7. So how will they they find the answers to questions they don't plan to ask?

I've offered Modulus Of Elasticity For World Trade Center Steel ... I've offered numerous structural collapse protocols .... how much more homework should I do for others?

"I've offered numerous structural collapse protocols .... how much more homework should I do for others?"

I must have missed that - you have actual written protocols that were actually used to screen steel from the WTC? Please share this fantastic discovery with us, if it wouldn't be too much additional effort. Or perhaps you have a list of general protocols used for forensic investigations of building collapses? I'd especially like to see the part about throwing away 99.5% of the evidence, that's a protocol I've never run across.

... go through these WTC threads ... and you'll see that this very kind DUer has provided ... time and time again ... a list of structural collapses where anyone could look ... and see for themselves ... all the protocols ... the SOP ... just how an investigation is handled. Out of my kindness .... my understanding and acceptance of the mistakes made by youths I won't pick on you ... or joke about you for not yet reading any of the info I very generously offered above. Check it out ...