booya!! I feel it too. The truth is the media will not acknowledge it. Using the metaphor of a dam, the dam is filling up. The water is almost overflowing and the dam is on the verge of buckling. Only when it starts to disintegrate will the media finally acknowledge it, and then they may even take credit for it through their "investigative" reporters -- bullshit. Keep on fighting the good fight people!

The scary thing is, if they really were intent on hitting the Capitol (and that is questionable), then they were prepared to go ALL THE WAY with martial law. Now that you mention it, the anthrax does seem like it was a backup plan.

I am not certain that Flight 93 was not intended to go down. If you have four hijacker pilots hit four of their targets precisely, it would seem fictional (as if it doesn't already). Flight 93 going down could have been part of the plan.

I'm afraid that they could carry out another false flag.

the Anthrax attacks are not as emotionally charged as the 9/11 Attacks.  This allows for more debate that doesn't automatically degenerate into name calling, questions of patriotism, appeals for emotion.

The question that I have is how will we capitalize on this strategic opening...

The good Dr's book adds a great deal of credibility to the argument for a State Sponsored False-Flag event.

How it connects to 9/11 is going to be a tricky case to make, but first thing is first, Clearly demonstrate that it was a False-Flag event.

It can be used as a wedge to expose the 9/11 Lie, and the perps know it.  Let's face it, if we can show that 93 was targeted for the targets of the Anthrax Attack (second volley) then how can the American public watch Congress not lift a finger to defend the institution that they literally are a part of...  It would be political hypocrisy on a level that would make Bush blush.

I wouldn't be so sure. Sorry to sound pessimistic about this, but don't ever underestimate the capacity of the MSM to keep real news buried--at least, effectively buried; that is, 'buried' as far as the still-too-numerous millions who continue to consider them trustworthy sources of information are concerned. 'If it's not on TV, it didn't happen,' 'If it's not covered in the Times, it didn't happen.' etc.

They are being made aware every day.... and they are listening and researching..... and you know how many Professors and educators and people who think about these things are "LIBERALS".

Every person I talk to who backs the Government line is standing in a position baed on emotion... or belief.... and they refuse to watch a documentary film.... especially one produced by a couple of twenty somethings.... which means they have seen at least 10 minutes of Loose Change.

If Google Video made a seperate top 100 for videos over 30 minutes.... we would own it!!

1.) Freedom to Fascism
2.) Loose Change II (Spainish)..... this is very telling
3.) Loose Change II Recut
4.) Terrorstorm

thats as far as I got.... I'm sure we'd have all ten

here's the link that takes you to the webcast page (it's audio only)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec06.htm

After you click the link above, click this one to listen in wmp:
http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~webcast/asx/nist-wtc.asx

If you click the link below, you can get the real time captions/transcript for the webcast:
http://www.fedrcc.us/Enter.aspx?EventID=641938&CustomerID=321

Just type in any name and company to enter the live captions page.

Continued...

We had started discussing that in March but we're not able to go in until August just due to a number of issues that came up with the group that was controlling bankers trust. I go on to slide 16. In August we had four other's veptsz. We completed preliminary analysis of WTC seven initiating event using the models which included developing connection detail and failure criteria to inform that model. We awarded the contract to ARA where we have control of demolition to assist with the development of blast scenario and since then to work with us on the analysis of the structural response to fire and damage. we completed our analysis of visual evidence for the fire progress through the building and building damage that could be identified. We completed the analysis of the data that have been report ed. Then in October the fire simulations fire models were completed for the floors and based on some new information we obtained we updated the damage which we have some now photos in. we looked at the video information we had and were able to do an analysis of building vibration just as the building was starting to collapse. The last few weeks we developed the model for thermal analysis and started those analysis. The global models were developed and have started the floor analysis. We have developed blast scenarios which are being reviewed for analysis of pressures. thank you Terry. I will turn it over but I want to say that the end product of all this work whether it's finished will be three reports. One will be simply a companion to the original 250 page summary report for the towers so it will be a written in story format so a large audience can read it and understand it. The second report will be a detailed technical report that will be written by NIST much along the lines of the various technical reports we have written before. With all of the detail and the -- this will cover the fire dynamics and the thermal and all of the structural calculation. The third report it will include result from our analysis the work we did on the reviewing the distribution system, the prelim flair structural response analysis and the blast scenario that she mentioned. The third report will be the contractor report which will be written by ARA baseed on the work they have done for us along with the subcontract. At this point Paul it's back to you and for the committee to ask questions. following the guidelines going top down in order I will first ask John if he has any comments or recommendations or questions. yes. The question of relationship of what Terry presented versus the other documents that you send us the collapse of building seven by Schulman what is that and is that going to be discussed before I ask my question? that document was only sent to you because Mr. Sherman has asked to make a public comment during this meeting and it's supporting documents that he has shared with the committee. It's not a document that has been reviewed or analyzed by NIST so it's really information that Mr. Sherman would like to share with the committee and with NIST and speak to it during the public comment section. thank you. That answers that part. So Terry I have a question. We know what the results were. We have that collapse. We also have very little data. We don't have as many pictures. We have a little number of pictures compared to the tower. We have the very little data on the fires. Considering the amount of facts that we have with all the sophisticated analysis we're going to go through which I think are fine and everything else, what is did possibility of really having a scenario that by changing a few things in it would change the picture and have another scenario. For example I can take one column out of one place and three out of the another place and have the same result. What is going to be the final result and how much is it going to be -- you are going to be able to defends it? John necklace an excellent question. That is a question we're working with. I think the state of our analysis at this point is the same state we were in with regard to the towers. Probably in early 2004 at which point we were not in a position to even speculate as to whether or not we will have a probable Kohls laps sequence. We're going to bring the best signs that we can and try to consider what if scenarios. Obviously there might be a meeting but we will try to ask the devil advocate as to whether in fact this is a unique solution or just one of many that could have given us the answer. But I think at this point it's fair to say we're not in a position to give an assessment of that we are we might end up in a few Ms. from now. that is fine but maybe the first step is to make a List of what do we really know as fact. So that everybody is on the same page and then what are the assumptions that are being made above and beyond those facts. That is would help at least the assumptions were made and people can think about them and see the relativeness of them. we're beginning to work that. In fact, we have tried to analyze the interviews that information we have to generate a time line of events and we're probably going to do the same thing with the photographers an with any other hard evidence that we have. But it's an excellent suggestion for us to move forward. that is all I have and Terry, keep up the good work. thank you. thank you, John. Next will be Bob. I have two questions or two comments I guess. Following up on John I guess when you making these assumptions you will like you did in the towers put some range of likelihood on the assumptions so you can do a variance in terms of the analysis. That is a question? Bob I will try to answer that N the case of the towers we used a process to understand. I think when we get to a point where we think we are close enough we will try and do that. I think we're at a point in time where that it's how to apply it is not clear yet so I think it's a point We'll consider when -- if they are able to do it in a good fashion. that is fine. The other comment goes to the blast analysis. I assume that a lot of these blast analysis are conspiracy people or rather than just content people. My basic question is in your blast analysis what time of day did these blasts occur? I think that is part of what we're value eighting is what can take place within the realm of designing a method to remove the columns and part of that is considering the time available and when it would have to occur. So that is part of what is being considered. because there is no way that they would know that the towers are going to collapse that they would have to go into the building after the collapse of the towers to install a blast material. Bob, again outstanding comment. We are doing the blast analysis primarily for completeness as we said we have not received any evidence of control demolition or a blast event. As you know we put out a fact sheet just a few months wag with regard to the towers where we say exactly what you just said which is the any blast material would need to have been pro positioned ahead of time and triggered to with the Kohls laps of the building and there are some the probability of doing that at least at the present time seems remote but we just want to and try and see if the event even if such improbable event were actually took place could they be discriminated from the other more normal events that we think are the primary reasons why the buildings collapse. it becomes a real issue. That is all I have, John. thank you, Bob. Corbin Williams. a point or two about the fires stuff. I thought I heard Terry say whether talking about slide 13 that the cases were there was only damage in floor seven and above initially and but as I read this slide both of the damage states have damage both above floor seven and also in five and six. Do I read this correctly. Did I miss interpret what you said Terry. let me see if I can explain it again. This is the stable that you are referring to. What we're looking at is possible different scenarios. So let's say we have damage state one. One scenario is that the initiating event was caused by fire only on floor seven to 13. Another possible scenario would be that fires on floors five and six as well as seven through 13 caused the initiating event. so the situation is that there are two situations that are analyzed for damage state one and two. And two that are analyzed for damage state two. there are six then have you is the fire proofing conditions. This is addressing the fact that they were not directly observed so we're going to look at a range of fire proofing conditions to get an understanding of the role they play. I see four. do you see the numbers one, two, three. yes. that would be three scenarios. Then four, five and six under the second column, five, six, and seven to 13. then I would get 12 scenarios. when you add damage state two there are a total of 12 scenarios. okay. I am following it now. my other questions maybe goes to Dick these calculations are pretty difficult for this building especially with the relatively little outside information and I am curious about whether it's necessary to like kind of like reinitial lies on the basis or was it's like one continuous run where you would predict fire transfer from one floor to another? Or did you have to stop and start again on the basis of some observation that were made at a later time? first of all doing the FDS run themselves is actually fairly straight forward. Choosing which runs to do and how many to do is not straight forward. FDS allows once you started the fires it keeps the thing going. I agree. That is what I am sailing. if we reach a point where the fire was behaving differently than the visual evidence the photographs then obviously we took a look at restarting or stopping the fire in that location to be consistent. Obviously the evidence is what counts. Simulations has to follow it. We also are doing sensitivity analysis to find out within the reasonable range of the variables could there be things accounting for the advice bit or none visibility of the fire. On some of the floors there are large numbers of interior partitions between the core of the building and the exterior face which the photographs you can see. We need to know how long the fire could be hidden on the inside of a series of those partitions before you would see it break through and show up on the outside. Then we work some of that. we as we did with the towers we had the fuel load to make sure the progress rate of the fires is consistent. But yes we are pndzing all the simulationses to those pieces of evidence that we have such as when were the windows broken and where were they broken. my bottom line question is say in the best case Ron how many time did you have to stop and restart the analysis? my recollection is that no more than once per run. I think that is where we are right now. thanks. is that your last question? that is all I have. I have a couple of questions Terry just for the sake of clarity I think. One of your slide you made mention you used the phrase floor base I am assuming that refers to that portion of the building that was over the substation. Have you been able to determine how the rest of the building in it was might have been tied in to this portion of the building over the substation and what the connectioning string is for a lack of a better term might have been with some of these ties. let me answer. I think I heard two questions. The large spands floor bay was referring to areas where we have 50-foot spands between the edge of the core and the exterior of the building. Primarily along the north phase and the east phase. The core is not centered in the building so that the south and west phases have shorter spands. You are asking how the building -- 2004 you were still investigating how the credible columns has supported this large area were tied back to the rest of the building. You were looking to get more structural drawings and I am just wondering -- my notes from two now four are accurate you were looking to see what the ties were and the strength of those ties and how they might have initiated a pull. let me try that and maybe Terry can expands on that. The old description of what Terry talked about in terms of working and initiating events, is the analysis that we were trying to work on a couple of years ago. Yes, in the structural model at that time we wanted to get better information on how the connections were designed in this building. It turns outs that the we don't have access to the detailed drawings. We have access to most of the other information in terms of the members so in order to develop the information on the details or the connections we have talked to the company that and we have talked to other construction engineers of the era who know the practice in New York City and were in a position to tell us the kind of detailing that would have been used in a building in the mid 1980's. So, we did do that and with regard to the initiating event the tie back of the column to the rest of the structure we do have a pretty good model of that now. The exercise of that model and figuring out the what if that are really being worked on at this present time. so that information can be used in any future analysis that will be going on or won't be going on? yes. second question I have you indicated in June you had reviewed the information. You mentioned specifically what the impact might have been on the fire proofing in the building itself. Have you Donnie analysis of what the damage might have been to the fittings on the piping in providing fuel to these emergency generators that apparently were located throughout the building itself in addition the piping that came in from the tank that is were located outside. the signal by themselves were not of any -- the strength of -- the signal to the collapse of the building and therefore it's probably would have been too late to have really initiated a failure of the pipes or the fuel lines to cause the fires that were one of the analysis. I am sorry. I thought the data you were going to look at was data associated with the collapse of the tower particularly to two. yes. We did look afl we have looked at all of the signals. The main focus of that was to establish the timing of the various events and if any again using it all sort of to see if there were any events that we could not explain other than it being the collapse of the towers and the World Trade Center seven. The signals strength due to the Kohls laps of the tower were not of any magnitude that were significantly from an earthquake design stand point or from the design or failure from a structural component system. There was not anything that gave us cause in terms of that being a significant event to have roup churred the pipe line. is a pipe line roup churr one of the scenarios that you are going to be looking at. when Terry talk beds the fire in floors five and six there is one case where we have damage the fifth floor fire as far as we know was not a normal building contents fire and are analysis is that it's a fire caused by the pressure rised fuel line there. But we also are seeing tremendous amount of fires on floors seven through 13. That are normal building fires. They may have been ignited in some fashion that we may never find out exactly how but he were necessarily normal building fires and of course as we saw in the towers and you have seen it in the large scale tests, in the case of large scale fires you do have floor sagging in a significant event and you do see impact or distress of the connections and you do see column drooping at the top of the columns. Those are all the possibility that is we're going to be exploring for the fires that were only there between floors seven and 13. one last question on this subject is there able to ascertain to what standards if any, any of the liquid piping in the building was -- Paul this is bill. We have not dealt deeply into that but there was no -- we didn't have a review done on the fuel systems. If a report was released. You will probably along with the necial tower report there want a contract report that did review the status of the fuel systems. They did look at standard practices and basically the indication was that those piping was installed according to standard practice and there was nothing there to suggest that anything unusual. The unusual event or the unusual design was the pressure line that was pointed out in the original report. There was no code requirement against that. That was just a different way to do things and the analysis was generated from that unusual design. Let's call it an than usual design. If it were to break in a certain way at a certain time the normal safety features in fuel systems may not have operated appropriately and therefore you had a possibility of building up a substantial pool of liquid or spray that would have lead to a fire. But we have not found anything to suggest that the piping itself is not follow the standards proceedings of the day. I have not seen that contract report you refer to. maybe I am describing it improperly. first of all it's a documented and the project one report which would be one - one and there is a contractor report which is one of the we would be happy to send it out to the committee for when we finish this meeting. okay. It's on the web site. We'll give you the link. I would like to see that. There might be a little bit more information that will come when the there the study is finished in terms of the -- bill can describe the scope of the study. is the study was more to understand the lay out of that building what kind of item what equipment was located in the building, what is observations were made by the people who are in there, were there any sensing was there any information that was generated from that building that might give us an idea of what was going on. We were not looking at the structural details of the building perse and that was so there won't be anything that will address that particular part of your question but we are dealing with the tie back and the transfer trust in other sections of our report. So that information will be included. so in the study which will be an appendix to the main report trying to identify the sequence of events that could have contributed and there was nothing that came out of that report that gave us a lead let me say that and say so it's therefore background dpotion and to eliminate the other possibilities that may have occurred. Is that satisfactory Paul? I still would like to see that contract. We'll send that. the reason I bring it up is we find in our experience that sometimes when you get into fuel systems of this type they use a very conventional piping system often times using fittings which result in big points on the piping. Where as in reality if it was a flam able liquid system it would all be welded an you would stay away from any kind of flexibility. At some point if you had this unusual fire you are going to have the give the scenario as to what triggereded it. What -- the boxes was there anything in that review. Anything that what was like the tower was like or anything that you would see in the financial centers every where. Was anything unusual about it? the first one is that no there was nothing that we saw that was unusual. The second part is that the Smith firm was on the upper floor. Because of the way the building came down our focus for the impact of the fires on the structure would be most likely to contributed to that is on the lower floors. We do have as a result of communications with the occupants of the floors up through 14 a good amount of fox about the types of furniture and density et cetera. thank you. My only other comment concerns the blast analysis. I made that comment before that I don't see the need to do this based on the information that you found to date, no evidence and base owed the evidence you have been able to gather about potential scenarios recording what may or may not have been store Ned certain offices in the building. But I notice on December 6th you completed the develop the blast scenariotor the analysis of over pressures. I am wondering if you could feel comfortable at this point in time telling us what those scenarios might be. Paul, I don't think we're far enough along that we're prepared to talk about that right now. okay. That is the ends of my questions. Let me go around the table once more and ask John if he has anything additional. no I do not. Bob. nothing at this time. Williams. no. thank you Terry and staff for gives us a review of that and I guess that complete the discussion on the progress report of collapse of World Trade Center seven. Thank you very much Terry. you are welcome. excuse me while I pull up the agenda again. I guess the next item is the discussion of this advice committee the report to congress. after thinking about it for the benefit of the committee I have been thinking about it and in fact I had intended to do it earlier in order to frame this discussion or at least give us a basis for which we can for see I decided I would draft a letter report addressed to as always the secretary of commerce reporting on the 2006 activities of our committee. In the past when we have prepared reports they have been fairly detailed, small bullets in fact but this year because there has been no new investigation and very little activity on the committee and maybe in an attempt to make our report more accessible for lack of a better term, I decided that perhaps we should think about just simple letter report outlining the two or three most important things that we believe that the committee has been involved in as well as reenforcing the materials in our earlier reports. This is very much as actually the second draft that you are looking at because the first draft I threw away but there is a working draft. It's open for discussion in terms of format, content or the like. I would like to get a long way down the road this morning. Get some agreement that what the format and what the conat anytime should consist of. I am assuming you have all had a chance to read it. I noticed just as we started this meeting I received an e-mail from Steve which attached comments that foreman Williams had made and following the reverse order comments and the like I would ask Williams if he would like to offer his suggestion recommendations on anything he chooses about the report itself. Williams I will start with you. thanks Paul. I really completely agree with your idea florentine mat and content. I is this the they were really excellent Paul to tell you the truth. I understood I think very clearly the first two paragraphs and then I started to read a few sentences that I felt I really didn't understand what you were saying so, what I have done is merely readviced the text to a form that I felt that I could understand but I don't really think that I have changed any of the conat any time. My intent was not to change any of the content so I think that I have pretty much gone along with what with the original version but to rewritten it in a form that I feel that I understand better that is all. thank you. Bob, do you have any thing. I went through the letter and I guess I had just two general issues and other thankedtor type of things and I won't address those here the attachment. You have a question Mark whether or not we need to attach advisory committee recommendation from the past. I guess I would discourage that. I think the letter by itself stands alone. I think it's stronger that way. I would suggest that the third paragraph belongs at the end of the letter because that in the sense is our recommendation. okay. the thanks to Jim hill I don't know where that fits in but I think the last thing you want the leave in the minds in the people reading this is they have some work to do. They have not done their work. That is just my input. John. yes. Just following on Bob's comment. You may want the make the last paragraph you have in is there about thanking Jim eliminating conclusion and just start the committee and then put that paragraph that Bob suggested at the end saying something as a crn or something by the committee and all the recommendations or whatever is the write word. Otherwise you did a good job Buddy as usual. may I -- I think I agree with the suggestion of putting that third paragraph at the end. I think it fits in okay. Your last paragraph said something like inclusion the committee expresses the appreciation. I think that is worth -- I felt that I didn't see any real need for your final sentence of that paragraph which is what I took out in my. -- I don't think we have to Pat them on the back. They are doing fine work. But I don't think we have to commends them for their dedication. It's sufficient to just do that but if you want to take away the unconclusion part that is a good one to have there. Then we can put that third paragraph at the end that would be a possible way to go. okay. I will just make one editor suggestion. The paragraph that begins the committee met once during 2006 I intends to bump to the top of the letter just to because it's an activity type of thing and make changes in the very first paragraph. It's strictly just to let whoever read it know we did meet once. We would continue on with paragraphs and I will use the revisions as the based document from this point on. okay. Sounds good. just for the record I have put a question Mark after the outstanding recommendations that I happen to agree with Bob. I don't think we need anything more than the letter and if somebody wants to go out and find out what they were they can read our other reports. I think we all agree with that. That will be gone. I think we're all on that same page. I will get Steve a draft of this probably it won't be until tomorrow. Unfortunately I have holiday decorating to do. We will circulate it to the entire committee for final comments before transcript miting it to the secretary. that is fine, Paul. The question was just raised here whether the committee needs to vote on this itself like everybody is in agreement but we might just want to call that to a vote just to make sure that we have captured that for the record. good suggestion. I will accept a motion that the committee accept the report with the changes that were suggested and which I will execute the next 24 hours. moved. second. second. all in favor. I. I. I. and I. it's by my watch 10:24 a.m. I got old business. yes. Old business. for some reason I do not have a similar report from 2005. yes that is true. neither do I. one was not prepared. okay. The lack of a report need to be noted? I have thought of it but I am open to discussion on that. noted where, Bob. that is the whole problem. I just want to make sure I was not out of the loop in something. no you were not. just ignore it. okay. Any other old business? Any new business? Hearing that, I would suggest that we take a ten minute recess then We'll allow NIST to make connection w's the individuals that want to address the committee. You can do that if I am correct Steve, by hitting star six it's will put you off line. that is correct. Or if you have a mute button on your phone that will do it. At this time Paul, We'll take five minute break. We have two folks who have registered to speak during the public comment period. I would like to ask those two folks to call in to have you call in information. If they would call in at this time. They should be prepared to speak when we resume. we will resume at 10:35 a.m. we can just leave this open line connection. you can leave the connection open that is correct. just make sure it's on mute because anything you say will be carried to the audio web cast in the whole world. I would never say anything that is embarrassing. okay. We'll see you in just about exactly ten minutes. Right.

Are both of our speakers on the phone. mer Sherman. thank you so much. Is the advisory committee ready to resume. I am here. Paul are you with us? I am here. okay. John are you with us? yes I am. okay. And Williams are you back with us? yes I am here. Paul I will turn it over to you then. thank you. Do we have the individuals who wish to address the committee online? yes both. we we do. gentleman, you have been a allotted five minutes to address the committee at approximately the four minute Mark I will inform you that you have about one minute to go and you should at that point in time begin to conclude your remarks or summarize your remarks. We appreciate you taking the time to be with us and to discuss the recommendations. I would point out that the committee is currently preparing the report to congress and that is the primary purpose of this particular meeting. I would ask that you include in your remarks your recommendations as to what you would like the committee to report to congress itself. We'll start with Mr. Sherman. He has previously sent us a document which is under advice many by the committee and Mr. Sherman you are on the floor and the clock is running. It's all yours. thank you. World trades center was the 47 story offers building completed in 1987. On the land owned about the port authority. It was built by the candleholders. Building seven was not hit by any planes but had some damage. This is a damage on the building and the failure of the water supply. By talking to the owner they decided to's evacuate the building but let them burn out. It was a fire resistent building it would be every expectation that the fire would burn out without any local Kohls laps. Given that the towers had Kohls laps and that there had been serious interior Kohls laps of building five there was concern and a collapse area was cleared. The building suffered Kohls laps after several hours of uncontrolled burn goes. There were no known injury or fatality. Building seven was built over a period ever time. On the seven floor the construction was very similar. Large open areas. No fire proofing on the steel. Little bracing in the core and weak columns. The perimeter wall that resisted wind blows. Bad floors 53 feet acted as a die frame. Second core structure as in the towers supported only gravity loads. The floor structure had 2 feet deep steel beams. below spands steel 3/4 diameter by 5-inch long that was projected into the concrete. These studs provided bonding. The studs were not provided in the core. Similar source of floor failure mechanism as known responsible for the Kohls laps might have been responsible for building seven column failure. This study show that failure of the columns on the oft side of the building would travel vertically to the proof and producing the initial change of the east pnt house roof the first indication of Kohls laps as video taped. The west house roof as seen in the video tape five seconds after the east pent house roof indicating a Kohls laps. The fire appears to be a very as shown in the photo appears to be an office fire. This is on throor 12. There was a sponge possibility that this building Kohls lapsed from this office fire alone. Spreading east and the photograph coming out of eight windows on the oft side. This fire must have dropped down to the 11 floor. It was fire starting in multiple 12 floor windows. This is a serious high rise building fire which would have had multiple alarms to control. Building collapse about three hours later after the 12 floor fire burned out. Mr. Sherman the four minutes have gone by you should use your remaining minutes to summarize your remarks. okay. The possibility exist that some weaknesses exist in high rise building with long spands floors had caused without lateral bracing and weak column. This can do a computer analysis. but the increasing spands and size of floor in the high rise office building allowed by the iewtion of steel to determine if they are or can be adequately protected from the fire. New mot thod should be used to determine the test of that. Long spand different parts of the web of flanges. The tracks of steel or steel beams forces our column pulling them out of the line of buckling. Mr. Sherman. Your five minutes is concluded. thank you. thank you very much. the next person to address the committee is Mr. Leap Hart. The floor is yours. my name is Jerry leap Hart I am an service at law I have an office in Connecticut. I make this statement on behalf of myself and and the consultation with certain members of the organization known as scholars for 9/11 truth incorporated. First a comment on the web page entitled quote building code experts translating world trait center recommendations into model building candleholders unquote. The date reference is December 8, 9, 2006 appear to be wrong. They actually pertain to meeting held in 2005 and the web page should be corrected. My comments are based on a concern that NIST quote statement on progressive Kohls laps provision -- and NIST currently existing quote recommendations following the federal building and fire investigation of the World Trade Center disaster unquote are based on misleading and inaccurate information. Mr. Leap Hart -- is my time going to be held while we discuss your concern? no, sir. I just wanted to point out to you that your comments needs to be limited to the scope set out by the agenda for this meeting. Which regard the report to congress that advisory committee is preparing and also the status of the World Trade Center seven investigation. they are related. Thank you very much for your insight. On the one hand it may be appropriate to adopt new standards and to certain new recommendations pertaining to progressive Kohls laps as defined in the united kingdom. It's to base changes and standards upon the NIST. The document otherwise known as quote the final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Apparently I am not the only observer to have made this connection. Mr. Leap heart this is the federal program official for this committee. Your comments you are making on NC star one is not the subject of today's melting. Today's meet will on World Trade Center seven is specific discussion that took place with regard to the report on the committee to congress. So, the comments you are making are outside the scope of the comment periods that was provided to you on the federal notice. if you have any comes specifically related to World Trade Center seven the work we're doing and related to the advisory committee report that was discussed you can have comment period but if you have any other comment that you would submit to NIST you can send them to us by e-mail. say your name again. I am the lead investigators for the investigation as well as the designated federal officer for this advisory committee. thank you for that clarification. I will responds accordingly. the written version of the ongoing investigation of World Trade Center seven was modified beginning in or about October of this year to indicate that blast events would be considered as a part of the ongoing investigation. It's good that the words quote blast events have entered into with respect to the still incomplete but none the less ongoing investigation of the apparent demolition of World Trade Center building number seven. you have four minutes have been taken. You should begin to summarize your remarks. actually I had asked earlier if the four minutes would be held in during the portion of my comments that were interrupted. I understood that they would be. I have stopped the clock and well the doctor was explaining to you what the before that so I have stopped it twice and I have stopped it right now so you are in your final minute so if you could summarize your comments within the next minute. okay. Let me conclude this comment by indicating a written version of it will be submitted an the written version will call attention to significant visual evidence that establishes probable cause to conclude that World Trade Center one and two were destroyed by actual blast events and not blast events to follow that has entered into NIST with respect to World Trade Center seven. Thank you gentleman. thank you Mr. Leap Hart. that concludes the public comment period. With that, that concludes the agenda as prepared. Are there any other comments. thank you and everybody happy holidays. thank you. You folks too. Bob. no comment. Happy holidays to everybody. and Corbin. I would say that I think that Mr. Sherman's analysis I thought what he submitted some written material which I found to be interesting and I think it was worth while study and I would like to compliment NIST for sharing their information with him. That is all I wanted to say. I have one question in that regard. Is Mr. Sherman's information that was scene to the committee is that a public committee or is that a committee hold document. it's a public document. It will be posted on the web site. so I can make copies for other people sf? just a clarification this is Steve. It will be posted along with the minutes of this meeting. so it's a matter of timing. thank you. if there would be no other I would accept a motion for adjournment. all moved. all in favor say I. I. Thank you for arranging this conference call meeting and thank you for bringing us up to speed and the investigation. With that, and along with best wishes from the chair to everybody for a great holiday season and a very successful investigation. I call this meeting adjourned. Thank you. thank you. thank you.

I think you're being a bit paranoid. Sure, there probably is disinformation, but you can't go around calling every 9/11 truth person a shill. It's getting really old. When all you have is circumstantial evidence, which I do believe shows a conspiracy, you have people coming up with their own theories, ideas, culprits, motives, methods, etc. That's why conspiracy theories get such a bad rep, because there is no genuine consensus. Add to that the fact that conspiracies do attract genuine loonies.

The "shill" word is really overused here. Just keep informing and educating others about what we know: that 9/11 was not carried out by 16 Muslim hijackers with boxcutters and jet-fighter-like flying abilities.

Seems a little too convenient that he is the sole culprit, or "patsy", in the game. Nobody has been tried or convicted for these crimes, have they?