Red Pill Blog
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
1. To trick; to cheat; to deceive or delude with false pretenses.
–verb (used without object), verb (used with object)
1. to vomit.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has finally given the world the much sought-after explanation for why Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint in less than 7 seconds on September 11, 2001. According to NIST we now have a newly discovered phenomenon called “Thermal Expansion.” Here’s what they say about it on their website:
“Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.
“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”(See
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse)
Well, now we skeptics can take off our aluminum-foil hats and get a good night’s sleep because we now know that steel buildings can collapse on our heads due to “thermal expansion” and not because of our wild imaginings of shadowy men in elevator maintenance uniforms surreptitiously planting bombs. What a fucked up thought to have anyway. Thermal heat bubbles causing spontaneous building collapse is much, much more palatable.
(Article continues below)
And, while we are in the process of suspending our disbelief for federal flights of fancy (yes, NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which is under the aegis of the executive branch of government) let’s not worry about all that physical evidence like the iron-aluminum-sulfur microspheres found all over in the World Trade Center dust, or the molten iron burning for weeks in the rubble, indicative of thermite/thermate explosions, or eyewitness testimony for that matter. We can now dismiss such bogus evidence because according to NIST this is just not plausible because it doesn’t fit their hypothesis. From Syham Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator into the collapse:
“In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed—at least 100 pounds for one column—you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely.”
According to NIST’s logic, it is unlikely that al Queda would have access to a building full of personnel from federal agencies like the CIA, the DoD and the Office of Emergency Management, so the physical evidence of thermite must be moot. Right?
Kevin Ryan doesn’t think so. Ryan was an Underwriters Laboratory scientist who was fired from his management position when he questioned the fire-induced collapse explanation for WTC. He thinks thermite should be the central focus of study as this would explain the “substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC (Jones 2007), and the presense of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire where it would not otherwise have existed.”
In an article titled, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites,” Ryan writes:
“Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites they actually had considerable connection to, and some cases expertise in, this exact technology.”
(see The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, by Kevin R. Ryan)
The article by Ryan goes into further depth of NIST’s extensive ties to people and companies associated with this high explosive nano-technology, as well as the department’s own research into the subject.
This reluctance by NIST to talk about thermite was highlighted last week during their press conference when Shane Geiger from infowars.com asks Dr. Sunder about the presence of these microspheres in all the samples of WTC dust. Dr. Sunder’s response was to tell the reporter to go on NIST’s website and read the thousands of pages of material and when the reporter has fully understood it to get back to NIST in writing “and we will look at what you have to say.” Amazing.
Here’s the video of this exchange:
Beside evidence of thermite being dismissed by NIST as evidence of controlled demolition, so is eyewitness testimony. Dr. Sunder states: “We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down, and we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away. There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.”
Since Dr. Sunder has told us that explosives should be heard a half a mile away we can only speculate about what these people heard:
“Yeah I was just standing there, ya know… we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually ‘cuz it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around – we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock.” – Darryl: 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01)GZ Rescuer: ‘WTC 7 about to blow up’
… and this comment by NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before and during its collapse at 5:30:
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I m shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”
NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs, Prison Planet
Obviously, there is a discrepancy in the historical record. So who are we to believe? The eyewitnesses on the ground? or a government spokesperson who was not there and doesn’t even acknowledge these eyewitnesses’ testimonies nor the physical evidence?
So, what conclusions can we come up with with this new report? I have to confess that I have not read the thousands of pages nor do I intend to. After a few assertions from Dr. Sunder like the ones above, I’ve concluded that it would be a huge exercise in futility to attempt to debunk the government’s smoke screen any further because they are working under the principle of “If it doesn’t fit (our hypothesis), than you must acquit.”
“It’s simple, it’s straight forward, it’s elegent” to quote Syham at the press conference.
(Suffice it to say, the 9/11 Truth community will once again shred up this report like so much falling paper flying from the twin towers.)
This article was posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 12:06 pm