Final WTC7 Report Released

[Perelandra]

I heard a theory a long time ago about certain buildings being pre-set with demolition explosives so it would be possible to demo them when the time came. Does anyone know if this has this ever been done?

here is my collection of data on the "Built for Demolition" meme ...

Thank you so much for those links. I was not aware that this was a rather common idea floating around. I've wondered for a long time if the towers were designed to be destroyed somehow.

[kenoma]

What if the explanations for Building 7 are deliberately shoddy, in an attempt to keep political dissidents focused on what basically amounts to a non-issue in the grand scheme of current world politics?

If the official explanation is "deliberately shoddy", are we to assume there is a far more credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 gathering dust in a cubicle at NIST? Can you tell us what such a non-shoddy explanation might look like? Can you tell us how it might plausibly explain the freakish collapse of WTC7?
If you can't, then quit your ridiculous hypothesizing.
The Warren Commission was shoddy, the cassus belli for the invasion of Iraq was shoddy, the current expanation for the anthrax attacks is something more than shoddy. When people lie, the results are invariably shoddy. That's what a lie is: a shoddy explanation of reality.
I can't understand why people think the official story would have to be sophisticated and plausible for it to work. The NIST report produced the desired 'Eggheads refute Conspiracy Theorists' headlines not because it was plausible, but simply because it was a government-sponsored report.

[isachar]

What if the explanations for Building 7 are deliberately shoddy, in an attempt to keep political dissidents focused on what basically amounts to a non-issue in the grand scheme of current world politics?

If the official explanation is "deliberately shoddy", are we to assume there is a far more credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 gathering dust in a cubicle at NIST? Can you tell us what such a non-shoddy explanation might look like? Can you tell us how it might plausibly explain the freakish collapse of WTC7?
If you can't, then quit your ridiculous hypothesizing.
The Warren Commission was shoddy, the cassus belli for the invasion of Iraq was shoddy, the current expanation for the anthrax attacks is something more than shoddy. When people lie, the results are invariably shoddy. That's what a lie is: a shoddy explanation of reality.
I can't understand why people think the official story would have to be sophisticated and plausible for it to work. The NIST report produced the desired 'Eggheads refute Conspiracy Theorists' headlines not because it was plausible, but simply because it was a government-sponsored report.

Dead on! Damn Straight.

The phony NiST reports have as much plausibility as the FBI's trying to pin the anthrax attacks on Ivins (or Hatfill before).

Not buying any of that shit. It's all phony from the git go.

Made As Instructed, as is said of those who are august members of the Mortgage Appraisers Institute.

Fake Fake Fake Fake.

Fake.

[kenoma]

Why, the first theories within days of 9/11 were "the Jews did it".

No, the first theories were that the Muslims did it. You may actually be the only person on the planet who missed that.

[kenoma]

You wanna see what happens when people emulate Alex Jones? Look no further than that kid who confronted John Kerry down in Florida. Where do you think this 911 Truther got the idea that he could loudly speak truth to power as long as he refused to back down?. He was obviously scared shitless the entire time, but he was still trying to be assertive when they tried to eject him. And it got him fucking tased.

That 'kid' wasn't a '9/11 truther'. His question was about election fraud: demonstrable, well-documented election fraud. He was quoting Greg Palast, not Alex Jones.
And what's your point? That if if you get ask questions you'll get tasered? And if you get tasered, that proves you're a boring loudmouth?
Really what's your point? Give me one reason not to dismiss you as a reactionary windbag.

[kenoma]

So, to sum up the conventional wisdom...

Anti-intellectualism in the defense of Truth is no virtue.

This means nothing. It's portentous enough that it sounds like it ought to mean something, but it means nothing.
There is nothing at all 'intellectual' about the positions that Mac has contested here: nothing beyond the air of dubious authority so cheaply earned by snide dismissal and an obstinate refusal to be tainted by anything as base as mere empirical fact.
What we've heard from the 'intellectuals' in this thread are wild conjectures that the NIST report was designed to be deliberately stupid as part of an ingenious entrapment of the always-ridiculous 9/11 truthers (because it's so obviously unimaginable that govt explanations of implausible events would sound... well ... stupid).
We've heard the usual BCCI- Bin Laden family - CIA - Pakistani Intelligence - Octopus etc. etc. rigmarole from 8bit, but as he himself admits, this stuff interests him because it makes a better movie than boring old CD:

Could you imagine if Star Wars was merely about the death star blowing up alderan, or Luke getting the lucky shot to destroy the death star? We wouldnt know who pulled the trigger, who funded the death star, ect.

Is this the opposite of anti-intellectualism?

No-one is 'defending Truth' when they state that the NIST report is a sack of shit: they are merely stating the truth, capitalized or not. And when they do so, they're not much concerned about whether or not they are bestowed with the dubious aura of intellectualism.

[jingofever]

No-one is 'defending Truth' when they state that the NIST report is a sack of shit: they are merely stating the truth, capitalized or not.

But how many of those people have read it or at least familiarized themselves with its findings?

barracuda says, "The answer of course, is that there was considerably more damage to the building than mere fires, as has been shown here time and time again. Sorry to play devil's advocate," but the report explicitly rules that out.

Hugh Manatee Wins says, "The NIST story, that every single support beam in WTC7 all failed at the same instant causing the whole building to come down in 6 seconds...IS IMPOSSIBLE," but nowhere in the report is that claimed.

MacCruisken calls it "unconscionably belated." It took about as long as the report for WTC 1&2. How long should it have taken?

[kenoma]

Also, in a court of law, what's more easier to prove? That the hijackers were being state sponsored at every turn, or that "the buildings collapsed from controlled demolition and therefore Cheney did 9/11"?

I doubt there's a jury alive that wouldn't be convinced by your parapolitical stream-of-consciousness, 8bit. Also, in your closing arguments, be sure not to omit the occult numerology of 9/11. That's the closer.

[thegovernmentflu]

What if the explanations for Building 7 are deliberately shoddy, in an attempt to keep political dissidents focused on what basically amounts to a non-issue in the grand scheme of current world politics?

If the official explanation is "deliberately shoddy", are we to assume there is a far more credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 gathering dust in a cubicle at NIST? Can you tell us what such a non-shoddy explanation might look like? Can you tell us how it might plausibly explain the freakish collapse of WTC7?
If you can't, then quit your ridiculous hypothesizing.

What do you mean, "far more credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7"? If it's so obvious that WTC7 and the twin towers came down by controlled demolition, then why weren't millions of people immediately up in arms for an explanation? I certainly didn't recognize anything wrong with the collapses at the time, though I gave it little thought. Can you just admit that you didn't find the collapse of the WTC buildings even remotely suspicious until leaders within the conspriacy movement started telling you that they were?

The Warren Commission was shoddy, the cassus belli for the invasion of Iraq was shoddy, the current expanation for the anthrax attacks is something more than shoddy. When people lie, the results are invariably shoddy. That's what a lie is: a shoddy explanation of reality.
I can't understand why people think the official story would have to be sophisticated and plausible for it to work. The NIST report produced the desired 'Eggheads refute Conspiracy Theorists' headlines not because it was plausible, but simply because it was a government-sponsored report.

And that's my point. As long as it's government sponsored, the content is meaningless; people are just comforted that some sort of explanation exists, and our rulers know this. To me, the collapse explanation itself almost seem designed to draw dissidents' attention to a non-issue.

I never said any of this is true, but why wouldn't it be possible? Isn't one of the main tenets of 911 Truth the idea that mainstream sheep can stare at an obvious controlled demolition dozens of times and hear blatantly fishy explanations for the collapse, yet still not be able to recognize it for what it really was?

Also, are you operating under the premise that the establishment would never put out propaganda that indicts itself? What do you think disinformation is?

[JackRiddler]

.

Unconscionable or not, NIST announced in early 2005 that the WTC 7 report would be delivered in the autumn of 2005, so the publication is in fact nearly three years late. During the three years, they set other publication dates that they also failed to meet.

Here was my "second anniversary" post on truthaction.org:

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: NIST Report Release Date for WTC 7: Second anniversary!

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.

[kenoma]

What do you mean, "far more credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7"? If it's so obvious that WTC7 and the twin towers came down by controlled demolition, then why weren't millions of people immediately up in arms for an explanation?

Because they were afraid? Because they had more urgent things to worry about, such as making ends meet for themselves and their families? Because they were raised to believe that the government essentially works for the welfare of its citizens, and so would not be capable of killing them? Because they've been conditioned to believe that the media more or less represents reality? Because that media never allowed a single dissenting voice to be heard, without drowning it out with ridicule and contempt and accusations of treason?

Lots of reasons.

I never said any of this is true, but why wouldn't it be possible?

See, the topic of this thread isn't whether your just-invented, plainly unprovable hypothesis that the NIST report is a devilish psyop is true or not. The topic is whether the NIST report is an accurate account of what happened on 9/11. It isn't: you've admitted as much yourself. Now, what's the most logical explanation for the phoniness of this report?

[8bitagent]

One thing might be true: Cheney and Co. weren't directly involved or in charge, otherwise there would have been a careful trail laid to indict Iraq and possibly Iran. The project of contructing bin Laden was the 90s FBI Counterintelligence folks (NYC base, O'Neill largely responsible) and of course the CIA and etc. The crucial thing is the geography--when Kroll and associates takes over security of WTC, and O'Neill put in charge, certainly there's means, motive and opportunity to do some rigging of the buildings.

Absolutely. The mystery of John O'neil is so bizarre. I mean here's a guy who helped create the entire "Osama"(or as he was called in the 1990's, USAma) legacy while for almost a decade being summarily handcuffed when it came to investigating or stopping the bin Laden networks.

A man who said how something big was coming, quits out of disgust, and begins his new job on 9/11/2001 as head of Kroll security for the WTC...where he dies(allegedly) Sacrificial lamb perhaps? *something* sinister revolves around that whole angle, I'm sure of it.

I think something similar might have happened in the JFK issue. And I feel 9-11 slipping away, as if in our lifetimes nothing important will ever truly be revealed.

Sorry.

Pretty much. What's so sad, is the few people left in America that thinks these Gitmo kangaroo court "9/11 trials" are going to somehow bring closure, answers or justice to the victims.

In forty years 9/11 will be seen as "the work of Islamic nuts from years of blowback building up", and as JFK theories are cutely chided as "Grassy Knollers", we'll all be called "controlled demolitionists".

Or, like JFK everyone will believe it was an "inside job"...but in a safe, family friendly disconnected way.

I never said any of this is true, but why wouldn't it be possible? Isn't one of the main tenets of 911 Truth the idea that mainstream sheep can stare at an obvious controlled demolition dozens of times and hear blatantly fishy explanations for the collapse, yet still not be able to recognize it for what it really was?

Actually, in 9/11 "Truth", facts are as interchangable as Magic the gathering or baseball cards.

Look at Loose Change original and Second Edition, and check out all the parroted talking points that get passed around as "facts". Hell, even I've been given 9/11 Truth brochures that use the same predictable "facts" to show 9/11 was an "inside job".

Also, in a court of law, what's more easier to prove? That the hijackers were being state sponsored at every turn, or that "the buildings collapsed from controlled demolition and therefore Cheney did 9/11"?

I doubt there's a jury alive that wouldn't be convinced by your parapolitical stream-of-consciousness, 8bit. Also, in your closing arguments, be sure not to omit the occult numerology of 9/11. That's the closer.

Actually I think I would.

We can have a contest to see who can come up with the most fanciful unified theory, cool?

Cheney and Bush orchestrating 9/11 with the Pentagon, CIA and Israel using fake drone planes, fake cell calls, missiles at the Pentagon, missiles in Shanksville, bombs in the towers...and absolutely no involvement of anyone with Arab or Muslim heritage.

Vs.

CIA-ISI-Saudi created Mujahadeen networks, coddled through BCCI and
Egyptian jihad, relegated to protected Balkan jihad missions detected via Able Danger; WTC and OKC being orchestrated by the deep state, leading to 9/11 hijackers being puppeteered on a cross country American
adventure all for the occult agenda of the new world order

Vs.

Osama did it for blowback, government was "incompetent"

At the end of the day, the only thing we can all agree on is that 9/11 was not masterminded by "al Qaeda"

[8bitagent]

We've heard the usual BCCI- Bin Laden family - CIA - Pakistani Intelligence - Octopus etc. etc. rigmarole from 8bit, but as he himself admits, this stuff interests him because it makes a better movie than boring old CD:

What's funny is that this line of inquiry isn't as "sexy" as bombs, missiles and fake remote drone planes and focusing on "physical anomalies". IE: It's crickets and tumbleweeds in a lot of minds

Why, the first theories within days of 9/11 were "the Jews did it".

No, the first theories were that the Muslims did it. You may actually be the only person on the planet who missed that.

According to even the most hardcore anti Bush liberals, that's sadly STILL the meme.

What I was referring to, was the first anti official story, "alternate theories".

That 'kid' wasn't a '9/11 truther'. His question was about election fraud: demonstrable, well-documented election fraud. He was quoting Greg Palast, not Alex Jones.
And what's your point? That if if you get ask questions you'll get tasered? And if you get tasered, that proves you're a boring loudmouth?
Really what's your point? Give me one reason not to dismiss you as a reactionary windbag.

Actually he was a truther. He brought up Skull and Bones, and other Alex Jones talking points. The fact he was tased, and the liberal media and blogosphere were laughing and happy about it shows how full of shit the left is in America. Because had that been a liberal at a Bush q and a who got tased, you can BET the left would have been up in arms.

"Don't tase me bro" was the most quoted saying of 2007, according to major polls.

[compared2what?]

Controlled demolition is EASILY PROVEN.
Example:
WTC7 can't come down at perfectly symmetrical free-fall speed without being blown up. It is impossible for all the support columns to fail at the same instant without being blown up. PERIOD. You don't have to be an expert to understand that.
A child can understand that.

The Twin Towers can't be atomized and tons of debris hurled hundreds of feet horizontally in a symmetrical radial pattern without being blown up. PERIOD.
A child can understand that.

Hugh -- The architects and engineers to whom you link as authorities don't themselves maintain anything close to that definitive a conclusion. They don't even assert that CD is proven. Their position is that the official story is contradicted by the publicly available evidence, and in the course of elaborating it they also enumerate the ways in which CD is a better fit.

But they don't claim, or even pretend to claim, that CD is proven by the laws of physics, or by any unbreakable natural law. There's not enough evidence to support that claim, or any other, because there is no way any branch of science -- or for that matter, reason -- can accommodate the unknown and unknowable unknowns. To get all Rumsfeld about it.

And even if it were possible to attain, what would make having certain knowledge on this one isolated point -- which implicates no one and forms the basis of no plan for action or accountability -- so crucial?

I'm not hostile to the proposition, or to its adherents (qua adherents -- ie, I'm not a fan of every single public figures who endorses CD, but in no case is it because they endorse CD).

Seriously. I just don't understand whence the need for a certainty that:

* avails those who fight for the cause of justice nothing;
* gains them no ground; and
* advances no cause of any kind toward any goal of any kind.

What is up with that? Please tell me. I'm asking in good faith.

[kenoma]

That 'kid' wasn't a '9/11 truther'. His question was about election fraud: demonstrable, well-documented election fraud. He was quoting Greg Palast, not Alex Jones.
And what's your point? That if if you get ask questions you'll get tasered? And if you get tasered, that proves you're a boring loudmouth?
Really what's your point? Give me one reason not to dismiss you as a reactionary windbag.

Actually he was a truther. He brought up Skull and Bones, and other Alex Jones talking points.

As I was saying, he never brought up 9/11. So how is he a 'truther', if that word is to have any meaning beyond whatever meaning seems to be convenient to your arguments at any specific time?
What does skull and bones have to do with the architects and engineers? More strawmen.