truthaction.org

[Nicholas]

I don't normally "do" demolitions but I believe we've reached an irresistible milestone: two years have passed since the date NIST originally announced for the release of its final report on WTC 7. (Or am I off by a month?)

On this occasion, let's consider the occasional "debunker" argument that WTC 7 didn’t really fall “straight down.” You don't find it too often, it is generally avoided. Why? WTC 7 did indeed tip slightly depending on the angle of view, and a small part of the end-pile did end up outside the original footprint of the building, on the street and against the wall of the Verizon Building (something less than 3 percent of the mass from the looks of it).

The trick the debunkers sometimes play on this point is to be ridiculously exacting about the terms “footprint” and “straight down,” and never, ever to compare footage of WTC 7 to known controlled demolitions of other, usually far smaller buildings. You will be hard-pressed to find any footage of a CD that goes perfectly straight down without visible tipping - having all walls tipping inwards in fact is a goal of CD, for obvious reasons; it’s desirable that an outer wall lands on top of the pile. But go look at 50 demolition videos, you will find that 90 percent of them tip visibly and far more dramatically than WTC 7. “Straight down” is obviously a relative term for CDs. (In fact, the straightest are usually the work of the leading company, Controlled Demolitions Inc.)

Even more relative in the CD business is the idea of “footprint,” which is again immediately obvious from videos. You will not find a CD where every single ounce of the original building ended up inside the original walls, and I’m not just talking about the huge dust clouds that are generated but rubble that falls around or ends up rolling outside the original perimeter.

If presented in a series of demolition videos, WTC 7 would stand out as the work of art for how straight it is compared to the rest, for how near-completely the rubble did end up inside the footprint, and for the fact that outer walls ended up on top of the pile. This particular “debunking” effort is DOA and smells of disingenuity.

More:

For all that, there was significant asymmetrical damage to the south side of a building of highly asymmetrical design, and there were large and uncontrolled fires raging for hours. Did this combination for the first time in history cause a global collapse of a steel-skeleton skyscraper due to these factors alone? If so, that collapse was incidentally very good at mimicking the bottom-first, inward-tipping, straight down and symmetrical action of a highly successful controlled implosion into the original footprint. Just bad luck for the debunkers I guess.

It’s November 2007, the second anniversary of the original release date for the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7. That’s a loud silence out there.

[dicktater]

What A Blast!

1998 Documentary on building implosions. XviD, 320x240/MP3, 96 kbps, 50 minutes. http://www.whatablast.com

Torrent:
http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=e40ff7d4e82addd6149b5952e0973a901ec5b4c2

[chrisc]

[Diane]

[Nicholas]

Hi Diane!

Of course you think so, since the above post was first written in response to your blog (minus an additional intro addressed to you):

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/straight-down-collapse-of-wtc-7-what-do-debunkers-say/#more-4

Rock on!

[Diane]

I wrote earlier:

[Nicholas]

I believe the right words are treason and coup d'etat. The supposedly irreconcilable L&M acronyms are just shadows on the wall of a cave.

PS- There's a more-than zero chance you will one day soon see WTC 7 worked into the official story - for example, a crack military demo team did its work to bring it down by taking it out from the lower floors, for fear an irregular collapse due to the damage might bury the rescue workers searching the pit. Never mind how ridiculous that sounds to us, if the official story floats so will that, for a while. I believe new epicycles or limited hangouts will be added to the life cycle of the official mythology as it plays out the rest of its historically short life.

[dicktater]

[Nicholas]

Dicktater: Sure. But this is bigger than Silverstein or his insurance case. He's already got the new WTC 7 and no doubt excuses ready; it's not like he did any blowing up personally. In such a scenario he will probably pose as a damaged party.

I presume we agree that if the WTC was blown up, then it was not for an insurance scam but a component in a plan for rearranging the world. I think privatizing the ownership provided legal cover by making the damaged party an individual rather than a public agency, and that would have been Silverstein's role - not as a mastermind.

All just speculation here, but really: NIST is two years past deadline, after they produced a 10,000-page report on a supposedly much more complex problem (the Towers) in about 18 months. What could be the cause of delay? Is there dissent there internally? At the same time, WTC 7 is turning into a household name (saw it while hopping channels on Ch. 5 last night, a Rosie/O'Reilly gossip piece with footage of the fall).

[winston smith]

Heres the contract that was let for the investigation into the hypothetical blast scenerio at wtc 7.Check out who is involved in the blast scenario portion of the investigation.
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm
Don't hold your breath on a proper anallysis.The problem seems to be that the people who conducted 911 are also in charge of the investigation
kind regards-winston smith

[CV]

Good link Winston. Here's the one Richard Gage includes in his presentation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

It includes this interesting remark:

[dicktater]

[Diane]

[casseia]

The reason that characterization of 911blogger exists at wtcdemolition.com traces back to the period when comments were moderated, and also when the owner of that blog was banned without explanation -- but clearly for "violating" some unspoken limits on discourse there.

For people who think Nico Haupt is the Boogeyman (which I think is giving him undue credit and obscuring some of the real problems), the fact that he allegedly coined the two acronyms is reason enough to eschew their use.

There are degrees of LIHOP, and some of them are still very much in evidence. The crux of the issue is the situation of the hijackers -- are they at the center of the story or at its periphery? How about entities which allegedly helped them, like Pakistan's ISI? Discourse which places the hijackers anywhere near the center of agency in the 9/11 events is a form of LIHOP, and it is discourse which is privileged at 911blogger as you can see for yourself if you examine its treatment over time.

I'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't grasp that the LIHOP/MIHOP distinction is moot now that we all understand the buildings were blown up. I'm also suspicious of calls for unity and limits placed on inquiry. I said "suspicious" -- not that I think there aren't times and places where we should agree on limits in practice or ask people to take responsibility for the avenues into which they channel their research energy.

[Real Truther]

An interesting discussion here touching on several issues. As for the terms, invented by whomever, I think they served a useful purpose (and possibly still do) as a basic question and that Diane summarized quite well: