03 September 2006
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
In the wake of growing skepticism, the U.S. government is taking the unusual step of responding to conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, destruction of the World Trade Center.Notice how the creeps at WorldNetDaily describe the government's response to challenges from its citizens as 'unusual', as if the government somehow exists in a vacuum, without the need to constantly legitimate itself before the eyes of its citizens. According to these bozos, those who don't believe the government's insane explanation for 9/11 don't even deserve to be acknowledged with answers.
This is no joke, folks. That's an astounding figure for believing - not merely negligence on the part of the government - but COMPLICITY. The emergence of this government fact sheet is a sure sign that the government FEARS us. It's a last ditch effort to appease the masses. But, a miserable one at that.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, headquartered in Gaithersberg, Md., investigated the causes of the collapse of the twin towers. Yesterday NIST announced it had posted a "fact sheet" addressing alternative theories about the World Trade Center fires and collapse.
The government's response comes in response to accusations and suspicions of increasing numbers of Americans that the official explanation of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 – that 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked four U.S. jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, with a fourth being downed in rural Pennsylvania – are wrong. In fact, a shocking new Scripps Howard poll shows a third of Americans believe the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
You can go through the whole tedious morass of conclusory assertions on your own. I will highlight their answers to just two very important questions to demonstrate what a disingenuous load of crap it is.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?That's because they weren't looking!
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.Who wrote this nonsense?!! A fifth grader? What kind of crackerjack scientist begins by assuming that which he purports to conclude?
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.Combustion within the pile? With what oxygen??? What a joke.
But, wait it gets better. Listen to what they have to say about WTC7.
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
SIX YEARS to conduct an investigation of an event that has so far plunged US into two wars and consumed hundreds of thousands of lives???
Then they brag about reviewing 80 boxes of documents in one year? A team of 8 lawyers in New York can devour 8o boxes in ONE WEEK.
Americans can walk on the moon and conduct stem cell research but they can't timely investigate the crime scene of the single most devastating attack on domestic soil in the history of our nation because they "made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation"? Whose decision was that? A banker's?
Or was it the Chief Executive who 'decided' it was more important to execute a war on a nation he concedes had NOTHING to do with 9/11? And another nation that was harboring a person who the FBI concedes it has no evidence to link to 9/11? When will the madness end?
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.
- An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
- Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
- Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
In other words, they're making sh*t up.
By now, our government is renowned for its world-class ineptitude. But, they really out-did themselves with this fact sheet.
The madness won't end until 'we the people' put a stop to it.
Prepare for the third stage of Truth. Unfortunately, the liars will not go down quietly.
Many thanks to wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com
It's not appropriate to list all the evidence supporting the bombs in the buildings theory of 911, but a couple of points here:
(1) The official NIST report on the twin tower collapes was based on a computer simulation where quite severe input values had to be used in order to obtain an outcome where one or more floors started to collapse (their preferred hypothesis). NIST then stopped analysing what happened to the buildings after that. They did not examine the full collapse sequence, only up to the commencement of the collapse.
From their final report:
"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..." (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12;)
(2) NIST themselves admitted there was no evidence that any of the metal samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177). Yet workers were pulling metal pieces out of the wreckage weeks later that were not only glowing hot, but dripping liquid metal. These temperatures were way above the NIST figure and could only be explained by the presence of a fuel other than jet fuel or building combustibles.
This is the basic argument for controlled demolitions. It's all spelled out by Prof. Steven Jones. See also.