Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7

Part 3 in a series examining NISTs story about the destruction of WTC7.


Part 2 - The Expanding Lie
Part 1 - Shear Ignorance

Very nice job

In 15 minutes, so far, you guys have done an excellent summation and presentation showing the present NIST theory, of the girder being pushed off its seat as the reason for the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7, to be impossible and thus non-explanatory.

Your work, in its fully compiled form, should be used to petition for a new investigation to determine the real reasons for the collapse of the building.

More damning evidence of cooking the books...

EXCELLENT work. So NIST lied. Yet again.

However, consider: NIST is a government agency, a part of the US Department of Commerce. The multi-trillion dollar question that we are obliged to ask is:

"Is it likely (or even possible) that a US government agency (NIST) is capable of releasing an honest, unbiased, scientifically rigorous report IF the contents of that report are politically incendiary (punintentional), and which implicate persons and/or other agencies within that same government of committing serious crimes... such as playing a part in, or being accessory to the murder of almost 3000 people?

Another version of that same question goes as follows:

"Is it likely (or even possible) that a US government agency (NIST) is capable of releasing an honest, unbiased, scientifically rigorous report IF the contents of that report are politically incendiary (punintentional) enough to demonstrate that the parties who were universally blamed by the government, with their lapdog media in tow, were only partly responsible, or perhaps even *not responsible*, for the attacks of 9/11?"

No and no.

It must have been anticipated (by the Bush Administration and other elements within government) that an investigation would be opened, as to why a massive 47 story building suddenly imploded, in full view, without historical precedent. What are the best ways of compromising a trial or an investigation in order to divert or detach blame? (The same goes for the Twin Towers, of course).

*First, restrict media coverage. The demise of WTC7 became quickly an item of "curiosity", an "anomalous aside", deemed not very newsworthy or significant by the corporate media. Furthermore, it was not easy to link this aspect of the attacks directly with Arabs and Muslims - the neoconservative mandate. As a result, a large proportion of the public either forgot about it, or even had no clue that a 3rd large building was destroyed that day. Then:
*Restrict access to evidence,
*Clamp down on photography and videography,
*Remove evidence - ASAP and under armed guard,
*Bury the evidence, under heavy security,
*Destroy the evidence,
*Misrepresent the evidence,
*Ignore the evidence that weakens a case
*Manufacture false evidence, and
*Exaggerate this "evidence" in favor of a preordained conclusion.

All of the above happened, not only as regards actions by officials and agencies at Ground Zero, but also subsequent "investigations" undertaken by parties within that same government. This neatly contrived "lack of data" allowed NIST to come up with a conclusion that was politically acceptable, and took advantage of the broad ignorance, as regards the scientific method, that exists within the public at large - which cannot seem to tell the difference between proof and speculation. NIST's conclusion is no better than conveniently speculative.

Actually, NIST's conclusion is an unscientific sham, the quintessential example of "dry-labbing". They claim, without an iota of proof, that a local failure was the cause of the collapse of the entire WTC7 - in perfect symmetry at near free-fall acceleration. However, as illustrated in the video above, NIST cooked the books. Common sense tells us that the motivation was to conform with a pre-ordained POLITICAL - not scientific - mandate. This WTC7 explanation was acceptable to the public because it did not dilute the government's 9/11 story with anything awkward, facts that would have, as Cheney famously quoted, "taken away from America's war against terrorism".

Can we blame NIST entirely? Probably not *entirely*... they were not responsible for the criminal activities (tampering with the crime scene etc. etc. etc.) that resulted in (NIST's) having to rely on the virtual world, in the lack of hard evidence. Did Sunder and Gross etc have the freedom to pursue an open inquiry with what little they had to work with? I do not know... but I would bet the farm that they were coached, and guided within very strict boundaries...in the same way that so-called 9/11 Commission was hijacked by Philip Zelikow, NORAD, the DoD, the White House and others? Both NIST and the 9/11 Commissioners probably had little choice in the matter... or else! Both the 9/11 Commission and the investigations conducted by NIST were cases of the "Gambino family investigating the Mafia" or the "fox looking after the henhouse".

The fact remains that we tend to believe (a) what we want to believe, and (b) what has been repeated often enough, regardless of accuracy or veracity. Violating the laws of classical physics? No problem - mention "conservation of momentum" or Newton's laws of motion, or the law of entropy to Joe Public, and the chances are you'll get a glassy-eyed stare. And - people implicitly believe in all kinds of equally wild and wacky stuff - big-business religion is built on such!

Is the US a mature enough society to be able to deal with painful issues like 9/11 in a rational way, with informed discussion? In certain limited circles, absolutely so. In mainstream or mass culture, absolutely not. The subject has been rendered a strict taboo in our corporate media - unless parroting the official version.


Because the glove clearly never fitted, we threw it away and buried it.

An admission...

An admission by the government that it covered up and/or participated in the demolition of WTC7 means the total failure of that government to oversee the best interest of its citizens. Near total failure of basic governance. Dramatic loss of authority. Ain't gonna happen by choice. Ain't gonna happen. Till it happens.


very cool work. Thank you.
Will forward and refer to this.

Be sure to also check out

The Hitler rant by gerrycan, just as good as John Cole's version of it.

Very indepth easy to follow presentation, will pass this on to friends also.


I am sorry. I don't understand the reference to hitler.


gerry also has a sense of humor: http://www.youtube.com/user/71gerry/featured



Excellent video

Thanks for making these videos. They get right to the point.

Keep in mind that they are not just asking us to believe that a steel skyscraper can come down in free-fall, they are asking us to believe that a "building within a building" came down in free-fall.

WTC 7 went through $200 million extensive renovation in 1989. it was referred to as a "building within a building" such that entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity. I wonder if NIST took these renovation modifications into account.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html

Keep up the great work guys.

Detailed Work

They say that the devil is in the details and once one delves into the highly specific details it is clear that NIST's explanation falls completely apart.

Does anyone know if NIST did any physical tests to show that a girder could be pushed off its seat in the manner described in their report? I'm guessing not.

An often overlooked critique of the NIST report comes from David Proe and Ian Thomas of the Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk Management at Victoria University. From their letter to NIST,

"The assessment of WTC 7 appears to conclude that composite beams are extremely susceptible to failure due to thermal expansion. This is not our experience at all."

Anyway, their comments used to be located here:

But I do not see these links as being valid anymore. Does anyone know where they are currently located?

Proe and Thomas comments on 7 - PDF attached


I had a PDF saved of their comments which are invaluable. I uploaded it for you:

You may also find this to be of interest:
Former NIST Fire Science Division chief and scholars challenge NIOSH WTC report and calls for peer-review:

They links can always be found on my website: http://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/

Thanks for reminding us of their comments. It seems like NIST took off the comments.

Everything helps.

Fire Chief link. I do find that of interest. Thanks.


NIST has a penchant for always changing and removing their links. I've noticed that with many that I've saved. They want to make it as difficult as possible for people to gather information from their reports. Yet, there is no mystery as to why.

Covered here as well...