|
|
and Technology LIES to YOU. In the JOKE of an article by the useless rag "Popular Mechanics" (which now must have next to zero credibility) you will find the following statement concerning WTC Building Seven: "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7. On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom -- approximately 10 stories -- about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." Quote: NIST's Shyam Sunder. If this is true then supply photos (plural) of the damage. So, a new (false) theory emerges after 3 years. Isn't it amazing that no one noticed or commented on this severe damage to WTC7 before. Truly amazing. Wouldn't you think that someone would have mentioned it, somewhere, in these last three years. Isn't it amazing that no one published their photos of the supposed massive damage. It is even more amazing to think that someone out there, actually believes people will buy into this outrageous LIE. So now, without the slightest shred of evidence, a new theory arises. A theory, even more ridiculous than the first; where 12,000 gallons of diesel (not even enough to fill a 12 feet, by 12 feet, by 12 feet, cubic tank) is claimed to have ignited and caused the collapse of WTC7. Of course, if NIST should actually have any evidence at all, then it should be presented immediately. Added note: Eventually, ONE (and only one) faked photo of the damage surfaced,.. see below. Of course, it turns out this is all, yet another, bald-faced LIE. Not only is it a LIE, but it is easily proved that NIST's claim is a LIE: The FEMA report records the extent of the damage due to the twin towers demolition in the following diagram: 
In particular, the X's mark locations where exterior steel columns landed outside the predominate debris area. The predominate debris area is colored dark orange. There were only EIGHT such locations and none were near WTC7. Since none of the interior columns (the heaviest columns) made it far from the building footprint, that means the claimed damage had to be caused by the light aluminum cladding. But, this is impossible, and it is apparent that NIST's claim is a LIE. Let me emphasize: FEMA found no heavy beams or columns near WTC 7. So, the statement above from NIST, is an OUTRIGHT LIE, fed to us by the useless rag "popular mechanics." Shyam Sunder (or was that SHAM Sunder) like Thomas Eagar, is a LIAR from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. NIST's Shyam Sunder should be prosecuted in a court of law, to the maximum extent of the law. Shyam Sunder's official title is: Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. Play-acting deputy director, Lead investigator of cover-up, Building Demolition and Fire Starting Research Laboratory, National Institute of False Standards and Psuedo Technology. Contact Shyam and have a chat with him,... I am sure he will be glad to hear from you. Phone: (301) 975-6713 Email: sunder@enh.nist.gov Organization: NIST Address: NIST Building 226, Room B354 Gaithersburg, MD Shyam Sunder also issued this communication: "We'd like to put out a special call today for photographic and video images that could help us better document the initial damage and the subsequent fire growth and spread in the WTC Towers and WTC 7. We are ESPECIALLY INTERESTED in WTC 7 and views of the South and West faces of the towers. Those who are aware of or in actual possession of such materials are encouraged to contact us and we will destroy the evidence for you." Quote from Shyam Sunder (in blue) August 21, 2002. The purpose of the communication was (among other things) to determine whether the upcoming lie would be easily contradicted by photos held by the general public, and if so, whether it was possible to gather such photos or videos, via purchase, and remove them from the public domain. Addendum: Here is the fake "photo" presented in the official NIST document: 
Here is another photo (from 911omissionreport.com) of the south-west corner of WTC7. 
Click on the pictures for larger photos. The damage to World Financial Center 3 (the American Express building) caused by exterior columns from the North tower is visible. So, we can conclude that the photo was taken after the demolition of the North tower. Also, the ruins you can see in the lower right of the photo, are apparently of the North Tower. In the next two pictures we compare the south-west corner in the above two photos. 
In the above picture we have flipped NIST's fake photo from left to right, contracted it a little, and then tilted it, so that the south-west corners of both photos line up. In the second photo below, we have altered the background photo to fit. 
As you can see, the south-west corner damage claimed by NIST, has been faked with Photoshop (or similar software). Even without the photos, logical deduction enabled us to conclude the NIST photo was a fake, but now it only takes a glance to see this clearly. Another point should also be made. The claimed ten story (100 foot) high damage would not explain the buildings collapse, even if it had been true. For example, the Bankers Trust building had a huge 150-170 foot high gash in it. It didn't collapse. Have a look. 
Below, is a view of Washington St (click on the picture for a larger photo). WTC Seven is the building on the left. The corner that supposedly collapsed, is the far corner. It doesn't look too damaged to me. The pile of rubble is very small, not nearly ten floors worth. 
And since the photographer who took the above photo, was looking for interesting things to record, why didn't he photograph the huge ten story hole in WTC Seven, that NIST dribbles about. Its not like he could possibly ignore the missing corner of WTC7, which would have been less than two hundred feet from him when he took the above photo. Please, don't tell me he didn't see it. Cause, if he didn't see it, it wasn't there. From http://www.libertyforum.org (a false opposition hangout). |