We now conclude with WTC 7 and the Epilogue (starting at 4:27:49):
Part Seven: Building 7 (4:30:48)
The Official Explanation (4:32:08)
I must agree with the narrator completely. NIST says WTC 7 collapsed due to office fires (thermal expansion), "for the first time", yet did not think it prudent to examine this new-found phenomenon? I should think anyone who has reason to enter a multi-storied building would be clamoring to find out how it happened and how to prevent this anomaly from being repeated in the future! Instead, a supposed laboratory is content to cross its fingers and pray something like this never happens again? Whatever happened to their mission statement to:
"Promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life"?!
The Collapse Computer Model (4:35:05)
Once again we have computer models that directly contradict the official version of events (see my article of March 28th entitled Time to Revisit 9/11, linked below):
The Fire Computer Model (4:36:28)
What does NIST want us to believe? Their computer model, or our lying eyes?
"Building 7 weaker than regular skyscrapers" (4:37:53
This time "Popular Mechanics" floated a theory that was discounted by NIST itself (4:38:38):
"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7." NIST NCSTAR 1A xxxvii
In the words of Larry Silverstein himself:
"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity." (4:39:19)
Evidence to the Contrary (4:39:46)
Preknowledge (4:39:55)
Even though, as the narrator emphasizes, the idea that the media were forewarned about WTC 7's collapse is insane, we are left to wonder how it is that so many different sources predicted its collapse up to five hours before the event occurred.
QUESTION (4:44:06):
Given that the collapse of a steel skyscraper due to fire would have been an unprecedented event, how could so many people have known about it so many hours in advance?
If the police clearing the area expected a structural failure due to fire, why would they use such an expression as "the building is about to blow up"?
Can you explain how an unprecedented, totally unexpected collapse due to fire could be predicted with absolute precision by an actual countdown?
Symmetry (4:44:34)
QUESTION (4:45:23):
Can you explain how the almost simultaneous removal of all of the columns, which was necessary for Building 7 to collapse in the way it did, can be caused by fire alone?
Freefall (4:45:35)
QUESTION (4:47:53):
Can you explain how freefall, which requires the almost simultaneous removal of the supporting structure, can be achieved without a controlled demolition?
Epilogue (4:48:04)
I think the narrator could have stopped at "John McCain said", but on a personal note I find it highly offensive that a man who served in the same Navy as my father, who was responsible for the USS Forrestal fire which killed 134 sailors (he "hot-started" his jet), who points fingers at Israel every chance he gets blaming them for the incident with USS Liberty (never mind the facts of the matter and the rules of maritime law, with which he supposedly is familiar), yet feigns ignorance after writing the foreword for the book "Popular Mechanics" wrote to discredit those people who are demanding truthful answers to legitimate questions.
QUESTION (4:48:04)
If you were aware of solid evidence disproving the official version and suggesting the involvement of some rogue elements of the government in the terrorist attacks, would it be more unpatriotic and anti-American to ask for a new investigation, or to turn a blind eye to it and pretend such evidence doesn't exist?
Given that the people's trust in institutions is of paramount importance for a nation's well-being, would that trust be better served by denying the evidence of a conspiracy, or by bringing those suspected to accountability in a court of law?
The Last Word (4:50:05)
If there is nothing to hide, why is such a concerted effort being made to quash any and all lines of inquiry into an event that murdered 2,997 Americans? Why are investigators being labeled "conspiracy theorists" and/or having their sanity questioned? Why is the scientific community, which prides itself on its ability to draw unbiased conclusions based solely upon the evidence it observes, suddenly allergic to questioning its data?
What is the fear?
"What's past is prologue." William Shakespeare
No comments:
Post a Comment