NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Cheerful Spring

130 dB noise would be jackhammer, power drill. Are you telling me that sound on that video is not louder then that?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

never tested for explosives or thermite.

They found no evidence of explosives. They couldn't "test" for thermite because it contains the same compounds found in the building

How can you test for something when the compounds are already present

They also had an overwhelming conclusion

Loud bang has clearly resulted in the building collapsing.

This is something you've made up. When a building collapses (steel snaps, elevators crash to the ground) there are loud noises. You've personally decided it's the cause.

NIST is incredibiliy dishonest saying no noise was heard you can hear a loud bang on the video i posted.

Again something you've made up. They said no blast was heard. There were plenty of loud noises that day, using your logic they were all explosion devices - or worse, picking which ones are and which aren't to fit your personally made up narrative

Nano thermite clearly is not dynamite.

You have no evidence of thermite, nano-thermite, suspects wiring the building, who was involved, how, what happened

It's complete speculation based on imagination. You have no evidence, so you have nothing to present. Which is why you operate in this bizarre speculative conspiracy mode

Your views are as relevant as the "nutjobs" you slate with their theories on energy weapons. Your personal whacky theory has as much evidence as theirs

Likewise I can create an entire theory about 911 that has zero evidence, but you couldn't debunk any of it.. because it's my personal theory

I'm very suspicoius of this statement by Silverstein that someone said they are going to pull the building down.

Dredging up more muck from conspiracy pages

What he said in context: ""There's been such a terrible loss of life already, so the best thing to do is pull it."

Pull the firefighters out.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No because just like NIST Fema is a government institution where the only job was to find the same explanation as they did.

Just making it up as you go along

You can't address the experts and investigators findings so you just pretend they are in on the conspiracy

This thread is a demonstration of how someone who believes in a conspiracy with no evidence will, on the fly, conjure imaginings out of thin air, then believe them, then defend them, then believe them as fact

One random internet person with no evidence vs the experts/investigators who have the evidence, and are backed up overwhelmingly by the consensus of reocgnised bodies of experts

The established version of events doesn't change. The conspiracies do, they are all over the place, changing from person to person, e.g. your multiple changeable Pentagon conspiracies

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They found no evidence of explosives. They couldn't "test" for thermite because it contains the same compounds found in the building

How can you test for something when the compounds are already present

They also had an overwhelming conclusion



This is something you've made up. When a building collapses (steel snaps, elevators crash to the ground) there are loud noises. You've personally decided it's the cause.



Again something you've made up. They said no blast was heard. There were plenty of loud noises that day, using your logic they were all explosion devices - or worse, picking which ones are and which aren't to fit your personally made up narrative




You have no evidence of thermite, nano-thermite, suspects wiring the building, who was involved, how, what happened

It's complete speculation based on imagination. You have no evidence, so you have nothing to present. Which is why you operate in this bizarre speculative conspiracy mode

Your views are as relevant as the "nutjobs" you slate with their theories on energy weapons. Your personal whacky theory has as much evidence as theirs

Likewise I can create an entire theory about 911 that has zero evidence, but you couldn't debunk any of it.. because it's my personal theory



Dredging up more muck from conspiracy pages

What he said in context: ""There's been such a terrible loss of life already, so the best thing to do is pull it."

Pull the firefighters out.

They're claiming on their own website they never tested for explosives or thermite (which is it?) You can't have it both ways.

Oh my God how clueless are you. Debunkers have never reproduced the red/ grey chips found in the WTC7 dust. They have attempted to try and failed. Harrit study was peer-reviewed and his final conclusions hold up still today.

Were the components already present in the building?

If you referring to Iron and Aluminum that's true. However, the red/grey chips found in the dust samples are not a byproduct of anything. Red/Grey chips according to Harrit are nano-thermite composites engineered in a lab. When scientists he worked with began heating the Red/Grey chips in a lab the byproduct left over was Iron Microspheres ( this is what I believe you referring to?). Iron Microspheres was a byproduct of heating the chips and were of Pure Iron Fe. They also noticed even at lower temperatures the chips released a high energy combustion effect like energy. Debunkers have claimed Iron Microspheres can be produced in other ways this is true but they never replicated the red/ grey chips found in the dust that just a fact and not even up for debate.

Molten liquid ( steel and Iron?) seen photographed and videoed is considered evidence of high temperatures exceeding what was capable in an office fire. Do you have a good explanation of what would cause that?

And there is plenty of evidence it took weeks to lower the temperatures underneath the rubble. It doesn't make sense temperatures would be this hot still weeks later, therefore, a chemical reaction was still occurring still weeks after the towers collapsed.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe Regarding the loud band. I not sure why you say I made this up. You have the video directly from NIST. You hear a big band second or two later the Penthouse starts falling down. That loud bang could easily be an explosion or blast to say otherwise is dishonest. Just because you don't believe anything nefarious happened is irrelevant we are looking for signs that could result in the collapse. NIST claims no noise was heard above 130db that clearly a lie people can watch the video for themselves and see.

Cheerful Spring

Dohhjoe

Dredging up more muck from conspiracy pages

What he said in context: ""There's been such a terrible loss of life already, so the best thing to do is pull it."

Pull the firefighters out.

Pull it obviously means bring it down by demolition and you even said yourself it takes weeks to prepare a building. How was this going to be done in an hour a few hours? When people investigated they could not find the fire chief who said this it never collaborated Silverstein received this message.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

thermite (

Thermite is made of which compounds?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Thermite is made of which compounds?

Iron and Aluminum and? But what you ignoring though is they found the nano-thermite material in the dust it was the red and grey chips according to Professor Harrit. Debunkers have tried to replicate this and have failed and if you think otherwise you can post your links and I read it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pull it obviously means bring it down by demolition

Here's the full quote

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Here's a statement in 2005

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

Of course if you want to believe that he went on national television and admitted to giving an "order" to demolish a building, aka insurance fraud, go for it

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here's the full quote

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Here's a statement in 2005



Of course if you want to believe that he went on national television and admitted to giving an "order" to demolish a building, aka insurance fraud, go for it

Did you actually read that statement and think it doesn't sound weird?

The part in black doesn't seem fishy to you?
maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you actually read that statement and think it doesn't sound weird?

The part in black doesn't seem fishy to you?
maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Basic critical thinking

Why would someone admit to blowing up a building on national TV?

Why have only conspiracy theorists suddenly decided that the term "pull it" means to demolish a building? (demolition experts have been questioned on this and none have said that term means to demolish a building)

It's literally explained right here

"As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."

The firefighters were then pulled from the building. The building then collapsed.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Basic critical thinking

Why would someone admit to blowing up a building on national TV?

Why have only conspiracy theorists suddenly decided that the term "pull it" means to demolish a building? (demolition experts have been questioned on this and none have said that term means to demolish a building)

It's literally explained right here



The firefighters were then pulled from the building. The building then collapsed.

People involved in things can often make mistakes and say things they shouldn't have in the heat of the moment. The fact he tried to change it to oh I meant pull the firemen not pull the building could his way of correcting the error and obviously, people still fall for that trick. To believe Silverstein does not know what pull means I don't believe it. Demolition experts will tell you to pulling is well-known term to describe taking a building down.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The fact he tried to change it to oh I meant pull the firemen not pull the building could his way of correcting the error and obviously, people still fall for that trick.

So, to get this straight, according to you

It's plausible that this man gave some sort of order to blow up the building on 911 and then casually admitted that on national television

It's implausible that he agreed with the FDNY to give up on the building and pull out the firefighters

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So, to get this straight, according to you

It's plausible that this man gave some sort of order to blow up the building on 911 and then casually admitted that on national television

It's implausible that he agreed with the FDNY to give up on the building and pull out the firefighters

I saying he may have know what was about to happen not that he ordered it to be demolished. He knew in his own head what was up and then tried to create this elborate story that a fire commissioner phoned him and discussed pulling the building in a a hour or few hours. Who was going to rig 47 building in an hour a couple of hours is that even possible? If it can be done does that debunk the skeptic argument it takes weeks to do this?

Cheerful Spring

Interesting just found this

Now take this into context Fox News claims Silverstein did this on 9/11

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame.html

There no doubt now Silverstein was looking into this on 9/11. In light of him taking out terrorism insurance months before 9/11 and missing work that day, he claims a doctor appointment you got to wonder?


Pulling it quote doesn't seem that implausible to me now in light of what Fox Journalist claimed?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame.html

How on earth do you read that article and miss this

Although I arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the Twin Towers fell, I was in the danger zone created by Building 7 from the moment it collapsed in the afternoon, an event that is one of the key cornerstones of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How on earth do you read that article and miss this

I did not miss it I read it but has no relevance to what we are discussing. It's Fox News guy opinion.

We talking about Silverstein comment was he referring t pull the building or they mean to pull the firefighters away from the building?

Now we know for sure because of the Fox News piece Silverstein had discussed demolition the building with his insurers. So his comment therefore later in an interview is very interesting.

King Mob

Lol, so let's get this straight...

He first checks with his insurance company to see if he can go ahead with his secret plan to blow up his building only on the day after all of the Secret magic thermite has been planted and after the fake holographic planes have crashed?
Seems like the kinda thing you'd check before... And maybe not something you'd check with some one other than your insurance company...

And it's also not something you'd admit for no reason in front of the camera.

This is easily the silliest, dumbest part of the conspiracy theory
I would take space lasers and holographic planes more seriously than this notion.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, so let's get this straight...

He first checks with his insurance company to see if he can go ahead with his secret plan to blow up his building only on the day after all of the Secret magic thermite has been planted and after the fake holographic planes have crashed?
Seems like the kinda thing you'd check before... And maybe not something you'd check with some one other than your insurance company...

And it's also not something you'd admit for no reason in front of the camera.

This is easily the silliest, dumbest part of the conspiracy theory
I would take space lasers and holographic planes more seriously than this notion.

His comment pretty much sums up what happened there no mention of pulling firefighters from the scene and reports from that day claim there was no firefighting effort anyhow in WTC7. You just have to believe Silverstein misspoke

Silverstein comment has no ambiguity he clearly saying the building got pulled down
I REMEMBER GETTING A CALL FROM THE, ER, FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER, TELLING ME THAT THEY WERE NOT SURE THEY WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTAIN THE FIRE, AND I SAID, “WE’VE HAD SUCH TERRIBLE LOSS OF LIFE, MAYBE THE SMARTEST THING TO DO IS PULL IT. AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION TO PULL AND WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE.”

Now we know for a fact demolition was discussed because he phoned his insurers to find out about it when what time?. Building seven did not fall to seven hours later after the second tower fell his statements are very curious.

King Mob

That answers none of the problems with how utterly laughable the notion is.

He would not check with his insurance company on the day of event. It's silly to think he would.
He would not check with his insurance company at all. It's silly to think he would.
He would not admit to checking with his insurance company. It's silly to think he would.

And this is important:
He would not admit to the conspiracy on camera.
It's ridiculous that you think he would.

Again, I would take you more seriously if you were taking about space lasers.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That answers none of the problems with how utterly laughable the notion is.

He would not check with his insurance company on the day of event. It's silly to think he would.
He would not check with his insurance company at all. It's silly to think he would.
He would not admit to checking with his insurance company. It's silly to think he would.

And this is important:
He would not admit to the conspiracy on camera.
It's ridiculous that you think he would.

Again, I would take you more seriously if you were taking about space lasers.

According to people on the day he did phone the insurance company if Fox News is lying you have to talk to them about it.

Several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building

The follow-up clarification does not make sense either because even reported by FEMA there were no firefighters inside the building fighting the fire. Fact, it reported most of the firefighters had left the area by 12 noon they few that were left were fighting a fire were near WTC6

So his statements both times doesn't make any sense whatever you look at it. Even his phone call with fire commissioner is suspect because nobody has ever come forward and said they talked with Silverstein to pull the building down.

King Mob

No, what doesn't make sense is why he would admit to being part of the conspiracy on camera.

It makes no sense. It's inherently silly and requires the world to work on cartoon logic.

Your conspiracy is a joke.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did not miss it I read it but has no relevance to what we are discussing.

A reporter who was at WTC 7 when it came down reporting that there was no evidence of explosives has no relevance?

In a thread about WTC 7, in a current discussion about WTC 7 being bought down by explosives

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A reporter who was at WTC 7 when it came down reporting that there was no evidence of explosives has no relevance?

In a thread about WTC 7, in a current discussion about WTC 7 being bought down by explosives

Well he's in on it obviously.
At least until we point out how ridiculously huge the conspiracy would need to be at the point, and he'll flip again and decide that only a few people would need to be involved.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A reporter who was at WTC 7 when it came down reporting that there was no evidence of explosives has no relevance?

In a thread about WTC 7, in a current discussion about WTC 7 being bought down by explosives

It's highly doubtful he was anyway near this building. He probably talking about being near ground zero were you probably able to see the building fall from there.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Well he's in on it obviously.
At least until we point out how ridiculously huge the conspiracy would need to be at the point, and he'll flip again and decide that only a few people would need to be involved.

There plenty of evidence the building was taken down. If you want to believe in NIST fantasy that one floor on the 13th somehow collapsed the entire building go ahead believe. But the research had been done NIST theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We now know shear studs were connected to steel beams (girders) and concrete floor slabs were the collapse event happened NIST theory is therefore invalid. Thermal expansion cannot happen like they said. Instead of thinking we are nuts, why don't you ask NIST why have they not updated and changed their model to reflect the newest information, as they are fully aware now, there were shear studs connections and whereas they left them out still? Freefall cannot occur in a building with structural resistance that just a fact. Never mind nano-thermite has been found in the dust that can not have got their naturally.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, what doesn't make sense is why he would admit to being part of the conspiracy on camera.

It makes no sense. It's inherently silly and requires the world to work on cartoon logic.

Your conspiracy is a joke.

Well, he did brain farted or his covering himself in case he got found out who bloody knows but it obvious his talking about bringing down the building. Even his correction later he meant pull the firefighters out doesn't even make sense there were no fire crews inside the building to pull out.

Cheerful Spring

Here is an interesting fiery debate between a BBC reporter and Dr Harrit Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Dr Harrit and other scientists got samples of the dust and carried out work in the lab and their conclusion they found nano-thermite.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's highly doubtful he was anyway near this building.

Based on?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Harrit Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry

Organic chemistry. His paper was published in an open non-peer-reviewed journal.

The paper and it's "findings" are fairly well discussed here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017

For other readers it should be pointed out that Dr Judy Wood PhD (material science) believed that the World Trade towers were "dustified" by secret energy weapons. Having a PhD doesn't exclude individuals from being "crackpots". Speaking of which Dr Neils Harrit was labeled a "crackpot", took it to court and lost the case