The Bush Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released today a report on what it claims happened to World Trade Center building number 7. NIST claims that heat from office-furniture fires caused floor joists to expand, becoming unstable, and causing a collapse of the entire building.
The report was released at a press conference in Gaithersburg, Maryland broadcast over the Internet. Mainstream reporters were present, but so were devotees of 9/11 COINTELPRO cult leader Steven Earl Jones. At least two members of the audience plaintively wailed Jones' name while asking cover-up artist Dr. Shyam Sunder incomprehensible questions about thermite. Dr. Sunder patiently explained that thousands of tons of thermite would have to be omnipresent on the structure in order to compromise the steel frame. (A position only slightly more ridiculous than Sunder's own furniture fire thesis.) One confused Jones devotee blurted out something about "thermate," apparently unaware that Steven Jones had debunked his own "thermate" theory at a conference in Austin, Texas more than a year ago; having to admit that a lack of a barium signature proved no "thermate" was no present.
No one present questioned the validity of the alleged heat-signature readings; nor if the large blue clouds enveloping the building might have been not "smoke" from fires, but rather chemical clouds containing blue-tinted antimony, which was present in abnormally high concentrations in Southern Manhattan. Similarly, no one asked about the apparent molecular dissociation of the structural steel in WTC7.
WALLACE: Nine-eleven. No one questions your courage or your leadership in the days after 9/11, but one question has come up that I'm very curious about.
You put the emergency response command center in the World Trade Center in 1997, even though your director of emergency management suggested — recommended that you not put it there because it had been a target in 1993. Why'd you do that?
GIULIANI: My director of emergency management recommended 7 World Trade Center, and that was...
WALLACE: I have got a copy right here of Jerry Hauer's directive to you. And there were meetings in which Jerry Hauer said that it's a bad idea. And the police chief, Howard Safir, said it was a bad idea.
GIULIANI: Jerry Hauer recommended that as the prime site and the site that would make the most sense, and he recommended it because...
WALLACE: Then why did he say the building — he said it's not — the place in Brooklyn is not as visible a target as buildings in Lower Manhattan.
GIULIANI: He recommended that site as the site that would be the best site. It was largely on his recommendation that that site was selected.
And the reason that that site made sense was it was also the location of the customs service, the Secret Service and a number of the federal agencies, some of which I'm not even sure I can mention at this date, that we had to be in contact with.
And we also had backup centers at the police department. In Brooklyn, we had another backup center, and we had a virtual command center. So when that command center was inoperable, within a half hour of September 11 we were able to move — or within a half hour on September 11 we were able to move immediately to another command center.
So the way you're interpreting it, it was as if that was the one fixed command center. It was not. There were backup command centers, and it was a virtual command center, and it was selected because that's where all the federal agencies were that we would have to be in contact with, including some that would give you the intelligence that you needed during an attack.
Sen. John Kerry (D-The Tomb) was recently asked about the controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7. Bonesman Kerry gave a rambling disjointed answer, as is his wont, finally remarking that "the wall" was unstable and had to be taken down in a "controlled manner."
Kerry seemed to be confusing WTC7, which WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein said was "pulled" on a PBS special called Rebuilding America. That program also discussed the "pulling" of the WTC6 building a few days after 9/11. WTC6 was little more than four walls after the destruction wrought on 9/11, the bulk of the building's center having been "disappeared" by what appears to be a directed-energy beam weapon deployed from above.
Rosie O'Donnell seems curious about the 9/11 anomalies pointing toward the use of exotic classified weaponry. Excerpted from "ask ro" at/and rosie.com April 5-8, 2007:
"THURSDAY(video transcription):
Q: [Have you] seen the Requests For Correction filed agianst the NIST study?
RO: yesss... listen, that's a complicated issue folks -- make no mistake.
SATURDAY:
kate writes:
the biggest 9/11 question i have: why don’t most of the experts address the fact that in both towers, the "core" of steel was virtually obliterated. if the floors fell around the core, where it go?
RO: wtc 7 had a steel core as well disappeared into dust
Did a stray directed-energy beam hit WTC building 7? The evidence below suggests so. This could explain why WTC7 was not pulled under the cover of the destruction of the North Tower at 9:30am.
"The thing that makes it especially interesting is that there has been talk of a '20 storey gash' down the south side of WTC7 for years but only two recorded eyewitnesses and no photos. One of them was Captain Chris Boyle
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
As I see it, there have to be more photos somewhere although the smoke does obscure it. The smoke may very well have been a disguise. No. there is no question that NIST did not publish this photo for a reason. They must have known about it.
[...]
1) Does this look like a real hole rather than a shadow? YES
2) Is it consistent with the eyewitness reports of a 20 storey hole? YES
3) is it consistent with NIST's description? YES
4) Could it be debris damage from WTC1? NO
5) Could it be caused by an explosive blast from within? POSSIBLY
6) Are there other photos or videos that show this or anything similar NO -----
ABC's The View has about 3 or4 million viewers each day. Rosie O'Donnell broke open the issues of false-flag terrorism and World Trade Center 7 on the March 29 edition:
Props to Jason Bermas of Louder Than Words for rescuing this clip from the memory hole. It's BBC reporting the "collapse" (demolition) of WTC 7 23 minutes before it happened -- while it cleary sands smoking in the background.
The Bush Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released today a report on what it claims happened to World Trade Center building number 7. NIST claims that heat from office-furniture fires caused floor joists to expand, becoming unstable, and causing a collapse of the entire building.
FEED
TOTAL411 PODCAST
SELECTED VIDEO ]