NIST

Will NIST release thousands of photos and videos from 9/11?

Posted on

We’ll never know if there’s anything new or relevant in them unless they do. Will they release everything they have? And will they use the ‘trade secrets’ clause, or possibly national security excuses, to prevent those that could be incrementing to the official story from being released?

I’d like to take a look at all of them.

https://i2.wp.com/c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/121/l_7e5a83d1c014d68db6584dc91992b9dd.jpg


NIST Asks 9/11 Photographers Whether Images Should Be Withheld

The National Institute of Standards and Technology received thousands of photos and video images from hundreds of photographers as it investigated the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, and it must release copies to Freedom of Information Act requesters unless those images are exempt.

The photographers who shot thousands of photos and video images obtained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as it investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center buildings from a terrorist attack have 10 days to notify NIST that their images are exempt from disclosure or NIST will provide copies to requesters using the Freedom of Information Act, the agency said in a Federal Register notice today. FOIA (Title 5 U.S.C. 552) requires the government to release copies of documents it maintains if they are not protected by an exemption; the notice cites exemption (b)(4), which protects from disclosure any records, or portions thereof, that contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”

The notice states written responses must be received by the NIST Freedom of Information Act Officer, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710 or by e-mail to Catherine.fletcher@nist.gov by the close of business on Aug. 24, 2009.

The agency investigated the collapse of the World Trade Center towers (Buildings 1 and 2) and World Trade Center Building 7. Its notice contains a link to two FOIA requests, apparently still pending, from attorney Michael S. Leavy of the law firm Gennet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, P.C., whose request states that the firm represents Consolidated Edison Company of New York and certain of its insurers in a New York U.S. district court case concerning the collapse of Building 7; and from James R. Gourley, director of the International Center for 9/11 Studies. {source}

9-11 and the Crisis on Wall Street

Posted on

by Christopher Bollyn
Adding Insult to Injury:
Americans Taxpayers Forced to Support
Zionist Criminal Gang Behind 9-11

The current financial crisis in the United States involves some of the very same Zionist criminals and entities that I pointed out in my recent chapter, “The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11.”

The collapse of their criminal scams on Wall Street could result in more information coming out about the Zionist gangsters behind 9-11. Such outrageous criminal scams cannot be kept hidden for long.

The government loan of $85 thousand millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars ($85 billion) to keep afloat Maurice Greenberg’s criminal operation, American International Group (A.I.G.), brings into the spotlight one of the key individuals in the Zionist criminal network behind 9-11.


Maurice Greenberg
The criminal head of A.I.G.

As I wrote in the chapter that was published in July 2008:

KROLL, GREENBERG & THE ISRAELIS

Rebuffed in 1987, the Mossad team of Malkin and Shalom didn’t give up on Isser Harel’s prophecy of 9-11, which meant getting the Port Authority security contract. They simply changed tack and decided to work in a less obvious manner, through dedicated and corrupt American Zionists like Jules Kroll and Maurice Greenberg. Shalom went to work for Kroll, according to the online 9/11 Encyclopedia entry for Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the CEO of the American International Group (A.I.G.) insurance company…

In 1993, Maurice Greenberg became a partner and co-owner of Jules Kroll’s company when A.I.G. bought 23 percent of Kroll. Greenberg is very close to Henry Kissinger, who became chairman of A.I.G.’s International Advisory Board in 1987.

Greenberg was deeply involved in China in the 80s, where Henry Kissinger was one of his representatives, according to the 9-11 Encyclopedia. Through the China trade, Greenberg became close to Shaul Eisenberg, the leader of the Asian section of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, and agent for the sales of sophisticated military equipment to the Chinese military, it reports. Eisenberg was also the owner of Atwell Security of Tel Aviv…

Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll are connected to the key players of 9-11 in so many ways that their connections would fill a book. For the purpose of this chapter, however, there are a few key connections that need to be underlined:

1. Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll became partners in 1993, the same year Kroll Associates “was chosen over three other companies to advise the Port Authority on a redesign of its security procedures.” “We have such confidence in them that I have followed every one of their recommendations,” Stanley Brezenoff, the Port Authority executive director, told the New York Times in 1994.

2. Kroll controlled security at the World Trade Center complex in 2001 and was responsible for hiring John O’Neill, the former chief of counterterrorism for the FBI, who died on 9-11, reportedly his first day on the new job.

3. Greenberg’s son, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, became CEO of Marsh & McLennan (MMC) in 1999 and chairman in 2000. The first plane of 9-11 flew directly into the secure computer room of Marsh (Kroll) USA, part of Greenberg’s company. Mark Wood, an eyewitness, said: “It looked like a mid-sized executive jet and the way it turned suggested it was being aimed deliberately at a target.”

There is much more information about Maurice Greenberg’s ties to 9-11 in “The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11.”

Source:
Bollyn, Christopher, “The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11,” July 24, 2008
http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/911/theisraelinetworkbehind911/

*************************************

The WTC 7 Cover Up

Written by Christopher Bollyn
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
The Criminal Cover-up
of the 9-11 Demolition
of Larry Silverstein’s WTC 7

The owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, a senior Zionist leader and fund-raiser,
told PBS that he decided to “pull it” before watching the tower fall.

NIST’s Fraudulent “Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7”

A Criminal Fraud at Taxpayer Expense

By Christopher Bollyn

After nearly seven years, the U.S. government (NIST) has finally released its “Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7.”

As I expected, the NIST report is a cover up and fabrication that has wasted several years and millions of taxpayer dollars to provide a fraudulent explanation about why Larry Silverstein’s 47-story WTC 7 collapsed nearly seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on 9-11.

This is nothing short of criminal fraud carried out to cover up a massive crime of false flag terrorism — at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

I have read the entire print version of NIST’s “Final Report” and respond to it below.


View collapse of Silverstein’s tower at:
http://www.libertyforlife.com/images/911/wtc7an.gif

The Indian “scientist” Sivarag Shyam-Sunder (from New Delhi) and other so-called scientists from NIST desperately attempt to explain with their fraudulent fabrication how the steel-framed skyscraper owned and built by Larry Silverstein (and other Israelis) fell into its own footprint as the result of a few minor fires, while other high-rise towers, such as the Windsor building in Madrid, burned more intensely for more hours – and remained standing.


S. Shyam Sunder and his pile of lies about WTC 7.
The NIST team should be considered accomplices
in the criminal cover-up of 9-11.

The NIST study is a excellent example of what Dr. Steven Jones calls “pathological science.” Pathological science starts from an unproven assumption, e.g. WTC 7 collapsed due to a few sporadic fires, and seeks to prove that this is actually what happened. Such attempts, usually government funded, rely on computer simulations in which the critical parameters are tweaked until the desired result occurs, in this case until the tower collapses. That is not science; that’s fraud.

For starters, I recommend reading the response to the NIST “Final Report” by John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics). NIST accepted comments from the public on their “Final Report” through September 15, 2008.

Wyndham wrote to NIST, saying:

…your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise.

Dr. Wyndham concluded:

Your theory, if believed, has extremely serious consequences for the steel building construction industry and society in general. For this reason, it is doubtful whether anyone will embrace it. On the contrary, there is likely to be a public reaction that will expose its falsity. In addition, a vast and growing number of citizens of this and other countries are now on the march toward a truthful and independent accounting of 9/11. Your theory lacks scientific credibility. It is certain to be repudiated by future generations if not this one.

I don’t intend to wait for future generations to expose this fraud. In a very similar “study” (i.e. computer manipulation), the Swedish state funded the Vinnova computer simulation of the Estonia ferry catastrophe of 1994. Scientists were chosen to participate in the Vinnova project only if they agreed beforehand to support the official version. How very scientific.

The “program manager” for the fraudulent NIST study of WTC 7 is a 46-year-old named Stephen A. Cauffman from Falls Church, Virginia. I maintain that Cauffman, Sunder, and the others paid to produce the NIST study are involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S. public about the truth of what happened to Silverstein’s 47-story tower. These “scientists” should be held responsible for committing fraud using U.S. taxpayer funds to conceal the truth.


Stephen A. Cauffman,
“Program Manager” for NIST’s
Cover-Up of the WTC 7 Demolition

The recently concluded Swedish state-sponsored Vinnova study is very similar to NIST’s “pathological science.” The Swedish report honestly admitted that it was necessary to artificially release air from the vessel in their simulation in order to reduce its buoyancy, i.e. to make the vessel sink. This shows they were unable to achieve their intended result and proves that the official version that the ferry capsized and sank without a hole in the hull is false.

In both cases, Estonia and 9-11, the “scientific” government sponsored studies are conducted for only one purpose: to support the version of official lies. Talk about wasting taxpayers money!

The NIST studies of 9-11 are more of the same “pathological science” in which “scientists” are paid to prove the official version of events. How utterly pathetic.

Evidently, NIST prefers foreign rather than American-born scientists who might resist such backwards methodology and pathological science.

WTC 7 Technical Briefing

On August 26, 2008, NIST held a live webcast on their “investigation” of the collapse of WTC 7. The link to the NIST WTC website is http://wtc.nist.gov.

Release of Draft Final Reports on WTC 7 for Public Comment

On August 21, 2008 at 11 am EDT, NIST released the final report for public comment.

The three draft final reports are:

1. Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1A)

2. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1-9)

3. Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage (NCSTAR 1-9A).

The draft final reports are available on the NIST WTC website, http://wtc.nist.gov.

The public is invited to submit comments on the reports by any one of three methods:

(1) via e-mail to <!– var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy16341 = 'wtc' + '@'; addy16341 = addy16341 + 'nist' + '.' + 'gov'; document.write( '‘ ); document.write( addy16341 ); document.write( ” ); //–>\n wtc@nist.gov <!– document.write( '‘ ); //–> This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it <!– document.write( '’ ); //–> ;
(2) by fax to 301-869-6275; or
(3) by regular mail.

My response on the NIST final report on WTC 7 follows:

To: WTC Technical Information Repository
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611

Email to: <!– var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy16341 = 'wtc' + '@'; addy16341 = addy16341 + 'nist' + '.' + 'gov'; document.write( '‘ ); document.write( addy16341 ); document.write( ” ); //–>\n wtc@nist.gov <!– document.write( '‘ ); //–> This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it <!– document.write( '’ ); //–>

Date: September 15, 2008

Open Letter to NIST in Response to the
“Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7”
PAPER BEATS STEEL?

An American Protests the
Fraudulent NIST Report Posing as Science

To the members of the NIST Team, namely: Messrs Silvarag Shyam Sunder, Richard G. Gann, William L. Grosshandler, H.S. Lew, Richard W. Bukowski, Fahim Sadek, Frank W. Gayle, John L. Gross, Therese P. McAllister, Jason D. Averill, J. Randall Lawson, Harold E. Nelson, and Stephen A. Cauffman

To Lead Investigator Silvarag Shyam Sunder, et al:

I am writing in response to the August 2008 publication of NIST’s “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.”

You will forgive me for being rather straight forward and direct in my comments. As an independent investigator of 9-11, who has been forced to leave my home and country after being brutally attacked by undercover police and maliciously prosecuted because of my writing on the subject, I have no patience for people who willfully concoct “fairy tales” about what happened on 9-11 at taxpayer expense.

I don’t accept publicly-paid officials betraying the public trust and lying on the record. It was criminal for the corrupt members of the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. to commit perjury and lie about their actions when they attacked and TASERed me at my home and it every bit as criminal for you to present this pack of lies about what happened to WTC 7.

A PACK OF LIES

This is what I think of your “final report.” Moreover, I consider it a major criminal fraud foisted on the public. You have willingly participated in a criminal fraud to cover up a major crime, for which you have been well paid – at taxpayer expense. This is inexcusable – and criminal.

Having carefully read the NIST report on WTC 7, I would point out the following specific points for those readers who may have not read the report:

1. The NIST report about the “fire-induced collapse” of WTC 7, the first and only such “collapse” of a steel-framed high-rise building in history, is a mere 77 pages long. After removing the filler and repetitions, the NIST report could be pared down to less than 20 pages.

2. The report does not even mention the Windsor Tower fire of 2005, in which a similar 32-floor tower burned like a torch in Madrid, longer, hotter, and more extensively – yet remained standing.


Madrid’s Windsor Tower burned like a torch…


for many hours at temperatures above 800 degrees Celsius…

yet remained standing.

3. The report does not mention Larry Silverstein’s public comment about “pulling” the building. How can you ignore Silverstein’s admission that the building was “pulled,” i.e. demolished?


In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7,
admitted to having “pulled” the tower before watching it fall.

4. The final report does not contain a single photo of the building on 9-11. Why does the final report omit the photographic evidence?

5. The report omits other essential information, for example, it does not even provide any dimensions or information about the “particularly large” columns, the critical columns, which NIST says failed and caused the progressive collapse leading to the “global collapse.” How can you omit such important information?

6. The report ignores important evidence about WTC 7. For example, although Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is listed as a NIST contractor who contributed to the investigation, his eyewitness report that molten metal was found at the base of WTC 7, which he reported directly to me, is not even mentioned. How can such important evidence be omitted from the report? Simply because it does not fit into your “probable collapse” scenario?

7. The final report says that WTC 7 “did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns,” which it says were NOT even exposed to temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius. It blames thermal expansion of steel beams, (ca. 75 mm, if expansion of about 5 mm/m is accepted for the 15 meter long-spans, and said beams are uniformly heated to 300 degrees C.) caused by fires fueled by paper and “ordinary office combustibles.” The chain of events that led to the “global collapse” is not well explained in the report. Why would expanding steel beams cause global collapse in New York but not in Madrid – where they were exposed to much higher temperatures (800+ degrees C.) for a longer time?

8. According to the list of “Contributors to the Investigation,” NIST did not consult the architect, the structural engineer, the mechanical engineer, or the general contractor who built WTC 7. What kind of building collapse report is this anyway?

9. As the report points out, “the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional actions and funding was available for this Investigation to begin.” As a result, “some facts” could not be “discerned” and the final report contains “uncertainties.” How convenient. All the evidence was destroyed before you began your investigation.

10. The final report rules out demolition by explosives based solely on the fact that no loud noise was heard. The use of a quiet aluminothermic reaction, e.g. Thermite, to cut critical steel columns, beams, and trusses, which is certainly indicated by the presence of the molten metal in the basement, is not even considered by NIST.

11. Under the section titled “Aspects prior to the Global Collapse,” NIST notes: “A seismic signal approximately 10 seconds prior to the onset of collapse was likely due to the falling of debris from the collapse.” That does not make any sense. Falling debris does not create such seismic signals, while demolition explosions in the basements to destroy the column connections to the bedrock do. Mark Loizeaux, who told me about finding “molten steel” in the basements of all three collapsed towers, also told me that he would put the explosives in the basement if he wanted to bring down such a tower.

12. The NIST report states: “The transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.” How can you possibly make such a statement, not having even seen the elements themselves?

13. The NIST report states that none of the columns that held up WTC 7 were “weakened by elevated temperatures” and that none of the columns were subjected to temperatures above 300 degrees C. So, pray tell, what made them fail? How do you explain the fact that all of the 24 core columns and the 58 perimeter columns failed at the same time allowing the building to fall straight down?

Unfortunately, gentlemen, the “probable collapse sequence” in your final report about WTC 7 report is not only improbable, it is absolutely impossible.

What is even worse is that you all know this. Sadly, you have conspired to present this ridiculous explanation simply to provide a cover story for the criminal demolition of WTC 7.

Covering up evidence of a crime is worse than pathetic – it’s criminal.

Sincerely,

Christopher Bollyn
www.bollyn.info
www.bollyn.com

Sources:

Bollyn, Christopher, “9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire”
February 14, 2005
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796


Unhinged At Last: Further Reflections On The NIST/WTC-7 Scam

Posted on Updated on

Winter Patriot

Friday, August 29, 2008

It may seem too obvious to mention, but I’m going to mention it anyway. Sometimes when we fail to mention the obvious, we get off on the wrong foot and then everything else we do turns out wrong — and we don’t even know why.

And maybe people are saying this all over the place; I don’t know. I don’t get out much. If I’m adding one more voice to the choir, so be it. If I’m singing a new song all by myself, that’s ok too. It wouldn’t be the first time.

If you’re doing an investigation — any kind of investigation — if you’re looking into a murder, or a plane crash, or a structural failure, or a suspicious fire, or — God forbid — a complex series of events involving all of these things — you want to start with the physical evidence.

“Bring me the body,” you would say, “and the murder weapon, if you can find it.” You’d want to see the remains, the wreckage, and/or the scene of the crime, as soon as possible after the event. Physical evidence is the basis of all physical sciences, and you’d be looking to recreate the event based on the remaining physical evidence.

If that evidence were not available, you’d do two things. First, you’d find out why the evidence was unavailable. And if it turned out that the evidence had been destroyed, you’d find out who did that. This person or group of people would move to the top of your list of suspects.

Second, you’d turn to eyewitness (or camera-witness) accounts of the event. You’d interview everybody you could find who was there at the time; you’d examine all the still or moving images of the scene that you could get your hands on. Here your job would be much tougher than if you were working with physical evidence, because witnesses can lie or make mistakes, and video evidence can be tampered with; so everything you collected would have to be validated before it could be used.

But — if you were running an honest investigation — you’d have no choice but to gather up all this possibly conflicting testimony and try to piece together the event that the testimony purports to describe.

By their own account, this is exactly what the NIST investigators looking into the destruction of World Trade Center 7 failed to do. They didn’t have access to any of the physical evidence, but they didn’t see this as a problem; rather than trying to find out who destroyed the evidence and focusing on them as suspects, the NIST investigation turned to the next problem: the eyewitness accounts.

Predictably, NIST didn’t pay any attention to the eyewitnesses either, despite the fact that so many of them were trained to respond to emergency situations. The firemen and paramedics who were heroes on 9/11 and in the weeks thereafter were nowhere to be seen in the NIST account of the event, which was based on nothing more than a computer simulation.

In short words, NIST ran as far away from reality as they could get. And they came back with a ludicrous conclusion, telling us that they’d identified a whole new phenomenon that can destroy a skyscraper — without a shred of physical or other evidence to back up their conclusion.

It would be laughable, if it were not so much worse than that. But the media lap it up and ladle it out, all while pouring scorn on those of us who dare to point out how laughable it all is, or would be, if it weren’t so tragic.

It’s no wonder that I’ve come unhinged.

The remarkable thing is that so many other people have remained hinged!

Have we really fallen so far through the looking glass that we can now take transparent lies from our government and media in stride?

Well, I’m sorry, but I can’t do it.

I couldn’t do it three years ago, either, when I wrote about 9/11 and hinges in a different way:

America wasn’t at war [in the summer of 2001]. “911” was the number you dialed in the event of an emergency: it had no terrorist connotation. Not yet, anyway.

Look at us now, just four years later. We’ve got unimaginable trouble at home and unspeakable horror abroad. And the mainstream media [which was already weak four years ago] is now so frail that it cannot stand to show us any of it. Network television is utterly disconnected from reality, and the American government continues to move in a very unhealthy direction, at record speed. How could this have happened?

If it was all planned in advance, then the hinge was 9/11.

And guess what? 9/11 was the hinge, even if it wasn’t all planned in advance.

But … do you ever wonder how that single hinge could allow everything to swing so far so quickly — unless it was all planned in advance?

Does it ever seem to you that our present situation — and the future it entails — makes much more sense if it was all planned in advance, than if it wasn’t?

Some questions just don’t go away.

Source: http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2008/08/unhinged-at-last-further-reflections-on.html

The Collapse of WTC 7 – Christopher Bollyn

Posted on

Christopher Bollyn

August 30, 2008

After nearly seven years, the U.S. government is finally coming out with its tortuous explanation as to how the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on 9-11.


View collapse of Silverstein’s tower at:
http://www.libertyforlife.com/images/911/wtc7an.gif

It will be interesting to hear how Shyam Sunder from New Delhi and other foreign-born scientists of NIST explain how the steel-framed skyscraper owned and built by Larry Silverstein (and other Israelis) fell into its own footprint as the result of a few minor fires, while other high-rise towers, such as the Windsor building in Madrid, burned intensely for more than 24 hours like a torch – and remained standing.


Shyam Sunder and his pile of lies about WTC 7

The NIST study promises to include computer simulations in which the critical parameters are tweaked until the desired result occurs, in this case until the tower collapses. In the similar Vinnova “study” (i.e. manipulation), the Swedish state funded a computer simulation of the Estonia ferry catastrophe of 1994 in which scientists were chosen only if they agreed beforehand to support the official version. How scientific.

The “program manager” for the NIST study of WTC 7 is a 46-year-old named Stephen A. Cauffman from Falls Church/Arlington, Virginia.


Stephen A. Cauffman,
“Program Manager” for NIST WTC 7
Cover-Up

The Vinnova study admits that it was necessary to artificially release trapped air from the vessel in order to reduce its buoyancy, i.e. to make the vessel sink. In other words, the official version that the ship capsized and sank without a hole in the hull is false.

In both cases, Estonia and 9-11, the “scientific” government-sponsored studies are conducted for only one purpose: to support the version of official lies. Talk about wasting taxpayers money!

The NIST studies of 9-11 are more of the same “pathological science” in which “scientists” are paid to prove the official version of events. How utterly pathetic.

Evidently, NIST prefers foreign rather than American-born scientists who might resist such backwards methodology and pathological science.

Here are the official details about the NIST presentation to occur later today on the Internet:

WTC 7 Technical Briefing

On August 26, 2008, from 11:00 am – 1:30 pm EDT (16:00 London time), NIST will hold, via live video webcast, a detailed technical briefing on the investigation of the collapse of WTC 7. A link to the webcast will be available on the NIST WTC website, http://wtc.nist.gov.

Release of Draft Final Reports on WTC 7 for Public Comment

On August 21, 2008 at 11 am EDT, NIST released the draft final reports on WTC 7 for public comment.

The three draft final reports are:

1. Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1A)
2. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1-9)
3. Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage (NCSTAR 1-9A).

The draft final reports are available on the NIST WTC website, http://wtc.nist.gov.

The public is invited to submit comments on the reports by any one of three methods: (1) via e-mail to <!– var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy40785 = 'wtc' + '@'; addy40785 = addy40785 + 'nist' + '.' + 'gov'; document.write( '‘ ); document.write( addy40785 ); document.write( ” ); //–>\n wtc@nist.gov <!– document.write( '‘ ); //–> This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it <!– document.write( '’ ); //–> ; (2) by fax to 301-869-6275; or (3) by regular mail to:

WTC Technical Information Repository
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8611
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611

Source: http://www.bollyn.info/home/news/news//

Suppose Building Seven Was A Murder Victim

Posted on

Seven Years After the Suspicious Fall, A Stunning Scenario
Debases Both Science & Sound Detective Work

By Douglas Herman
8-26-8
https://i2.wp.com/911review.com/reviews/prisonplanet/markup/charliesheen_files/200306wtc7.jpg
Sunder: verb, to disunite, render, divide, cutting or breaking apart.
Building Seven was the Bruce Ivins of buildings. Apparent murder victims disguised as suicides, both Ivins and WTC-7 deserved a better fate. The truth, swept under the rug with the wholehearted complicity of the US government and media, deserves a brighter light.
Government officials recently claimed WTC-7 collapsed suddenly, an unfortunate victim of increased heat and pressure. Much like the sudden, unsubstantiated suicide of Bruce Ivins, the official story makes little sense. The more one examines the facts, the more one understands basic physics, the less credible the official story becomes.
In July 2001, Controlled Demolition Inc imploded a pair of obsolete, 400 foot towers in Brooklyn, New York. The towers fell in eight seconds, according to news reports. Three months later, another 400 foot tower, called WTC-7, allegedly collapsed at near free fall speed, under seven seconds, without the benefit of demolition devices, according to government officials. How in the world could that possibly happen?
Called a “new phenomenon” by Shyam Sunder, the head of the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the sudden collapse of Seven had befuddled NIST for nearly seven years. Indeed, the puzzling collapse so befuddled members of the Kean Commission Report that no mention was made of the building whatsoever. WHY? Why was the sudden, suspicious collapse of a key US government building so insignificant that neither the mainstream media nor the US government felt compelled to examine it?Imagine the Washington Monument collapsing suddenly and NO investigation for seven years.
Suppose we compare Seven to a murder victim. After all, as American citizens, the US government building belonged to us. Seven was almost a peripheral yet secretive member of our family. The Secret Service had offices there, as did the CIA. The Security & Exchange Commission housed important documents there, documents pertaining to important cases involving billions of dollars. Building Seven was a key government installation.
Millions of eyewitnesses saw the building fall. Dan Rather commented that the fall resembled those implosions we witnesses occasionally, of Las Vegas casinos purposely destroyed. Dutch demolition specialist, Danny Jowenko, with absolutely NO connections to the US government, affirmed the building had been imploded. A pair of top Swiss structural engineers, with NO connections to government agencies, said WTC-7 had been “professionally blown.” A structural engineer in London, also with NO connections or outstanding contracts with the US, said: “WTC-7 could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris.”
Who Slew Building Seven?
Thus if Seven were a murder victim, apparently a victim of foul play, as Seven appears to be, what sort of thorough and objective investigation would we expect in an open, democratic society? In any spectacular murder case, the investigation presses forward with sound detective work by top investigators, indictments, subpoenas, eyewitnesses, experts, like the ones mentioned above, summoned to testify, whistleblowers offered immunity and, finally, an open trial.
Top experts, like former Chief of NIST Fire Science Division, James Quintere, who stated: “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” would be sworn to testify under oath, as would key suspects in the destruction of Seven, like Larry Silverstein. Structural engineers from both sides could argue the principles of metallurgy and physics.
NONE of that happened with NIST. Instead the brilliant bureaucrats at NIST decided to base their lengthy investigation, not on diligent detective work, nor eyewitnesses, nor top professionals, nor sound scientific principles, nor the proven laws of physics, but on computer generated imagery. Yes, the exact same special effects that allow Spiderman to leap from tall buildings, Ironman to fly, and choreographed penguins to sing and dance were applied to building Seven. Indeed, with enough clever CGI, even pigs can fly and for nearly seven years NIST taught pigs to fly and buildings to collapse at free fall speed.
Seriously, with evidence destroyed and the body hastily removed, NIST had few choices; either to stall for more time (forever), finally admit the truth, or offer fairy tales and special effects unworthy of Pixar.
Since intentional destruction of evidence at a crime scene is a felony, Sunder was forced to do the dirty work of his superiors. In a rare moment of candor, NIST admitted that the combustibles inside WTC-7 would have been consumed by fire within any given location in 20 minutes.
“Thermal Expansion,” the extraordinary new phenomenon invented by Shyam Sunder and NIST, would have to suffice. If top fire experts testified that a typical office fire does not reach 200 degrees Celsius during a 20 minute exposure, Sunder could only hope that the mainstream US media would not cause a firestorm. He was right.
Some citizens wondered how the US government, a secretive state with a fifty year tradition of hiding the truth and lying to American citizens, could expect anyone to believe their version of events. That ONE key support beam, #79, failed after being subject to less heat than the average barbecue grill for even less time. The absurdity of Sunder’s theory seemed obvious but few US reporters asked why.
Nor did any reporter ask how or why microscopic granules of thermite, a steel cutting agent, were discovered in the dust and debris. Instead American experts, acting independently of US government agencies, government agencies bent on secrecy and deception, uncovered the murder weapon, so to speak. That murder weapon seemed to explain the intense, subterranean heat below the debris pile at WTC-7. Five days after 9-11, NASA recorded temperatures below WTC-7 surpassing 1500 Fahrenheit!
Digging deeper, firefighters felt the effects of this heat on rapidly melting boots. They too should have been called to testify in an independent inquiry, if one ever dared to exist. “Tons of (molten medal) was found 21 days after the attack,” said Richard Gage, founder of Architect & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than these fires could have caused.”
In an open inquiry, NIST spokesman, Shyam Sunder would be held accountable, for any and all false statements and fraudulent data. Sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Sunder would be a bit more reluctant to lie to his employers, the American public. When Sunder lied about the non-existence of audio recordings prior to the destruction of WTC-7, historical video footage exposed the lie but the US media did not expose the liar.
In an open society, which the United States is not, flagrant lies, false scientific data, and outright deception would deserve swift rebuttal and long prison sentences, not gold medals for perjury. Sunder, and his bosses, should be in jail for felonious destruction of US property. And treason.
Author of one of the few historical detective novels, The Guns of Dallas, to feature a key intelligence character who later corroborated the novel’s scenario two years later, Douglas Herman contributes to Rense frequently.

Source: http://rense.com/general83/wtc7.htm