Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled-demolition. Because this would imply that a vast number of involved people had, and continue to have, almost no regard for human life whatsoever, (we don't know anyone like that now, do we?) such claims are widely disputed. When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutio
ns. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts." In answer to the question of whether "a controlled-demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "while NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."The New 7WTC
NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007. What could possibly be taking so long? The replacement building has already been built!
Here is a good summary of the problems with the report, or lack thereof.
7 comments:
Here's some more food for thought -- look at a map of the WTC buildings at wikipedia. Why would debris from 1 and/or 2 cause so much damage 7 when 1 and 2 were physically closer to 4, 5 and 6?
OK. To all those who were so quick to say that this was a controlled demolition-who & why?
It has been six years and there has been no evidence to back up this BS-absolutely none!.
But the mission was accomplished. There doesn't have to be any proof that this was controlled. It was only meant to put doubts in people's minds.
Well,come on trouble makers-where's the proof it was controlled? And who & why? And, PLEASE come up with something besides "It was Bush's fault"!!!
If you read the post and watch the video, you will note that the NIST investigation FINAL REPORT has not been released (after 6 YEARS)! Where is the proof then, that it was NOT intentionally destroyed. A
And, who said "It was Bush's fault!"?
Please read the post / watch the video(s).
Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=3HLDgjYuRHk
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.
I believe Silvertein said "Pull it"
That could only mean one thing.
What happend to the buildings sprinkler system?
If this is so "cut and dried", why is NIST "having trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".
Where is the report / what's holding it up?
Didn't say you said it was Bush's fault. I said DON't say it was Bush's fault (thought you just might be thinking that since EVERYTHING that happens in this country is because of him)
We not assigning blame or guilt here (yet) we would simple like to know the truth and the whole truth.
Turns out, if you read the memo, NIST is having trouble getting there hands on the truth as well.
Doesn't this make you wonder?
Post a Comment