Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Because thermite and/or explosives were in place, and they couldn't risk their discovery.

The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed. The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[13] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008, draft report which included a period for public comments. In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

You see? All very simple and all the truther bullshit does not support the facts.

The notion of a load of sinister agents running around Manhattan sticking thermite everywhere without being spotted is a hysterical claim, except to the feeble minded conspiracy theorists who cling desperately to the fairy stories some mental patient dreamed up.

Unless, of course, the NIST is actually a shadow government spook organisation now as well.

Since 1989, the director of NIST has been a Schedule-C Presidential appointee and is confirmed by the United States Senate, and since that year the average tenure of NIST directors has fallen from 11 years to 2 years in duration.(Wikipedia)

The investigation was officially announced on Aug. 21, 2002. When the NCST Act was passed in October of that year, it required that the WTC investigation be conducted under its authorities. The draft report on the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was released for public comment on June 23, 2005; the final report was issued on Oct. 26, 2005.
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

It's not an independent body, but directed by the POTUS of the day, at that time GW Bush.

After Bush put NIST under the authority of NCST Act, it ceased to act independently of the government.


What does the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act do?

The act, signed into law on Oct. 1, 2002, by President Bush, authorizes the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) to establish teams to investigate building failures. These authorities are modeled
after those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for investigating transportation accidents.

NIST is a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
What was the previous authority under which NIST conducted structural failure investigations?
The legislative authority under which NIST conducted structural investigations prior to the NCST is
found in 15 U.S. Code Sec. 281a - Structural Failures.

This law states that “NIST, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures that are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.”

NIST also is a technical support agency within the Federal Response Framework as well as the National
Disaster Recovery Framework that outline how the federal government will responds to major disaster
declarations under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief And Emergency Assistance Act.

What was NIST’s prior role in the investigation of structural failure?
Prior to the enactment of the NCST, NIST’s role in the investigation of structural failures typically included:
establishing probable technical cause(s) of the high-magnitude consequences in the context of current
practice and codes and standards;

identifying issues and making safety recommendations for existing or new facilities through
improvements to codes, standards, and practices;

producing the technical basis for needed changes or improvements to practice or standards and codes
that will enhance public safety and health and homeland security; and,

preparing technically sound, archival, publicly available documents as references for future investigations or responsive actions.

A non-regulatory agency, NIST did not consider findings of fault, responsibility, or negligence. NIST’s
new authorities do not change that approach


This explains NIST's refusal to investigate the possibility of explosives or thermite used in the WTC demolition

AS a result, NIST also ignored and covered over the disclosure that several floors below the impact zone had been removed along with much of the internal fittings in all the other redundant unoccupied areas immediately below the impact zone prior to 9/11.


Shyam Sunder,NIST fire and research lab director, came up with all the b*llsh*t explanations of how the WTC buildings collapsed.

Exposed as a fraud,




Here's the fraud explaining his cooky cutter theory.



Another one of his hairbrained explanations, how the exterior beams of WTC1 and 2 snapped off in a straight line, an impossibility as the pillars were made of interlocking steel plates set in a zig-zag pattern.

That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists.






Here's the fraud attempting to explain the WTC demolitions.

Originally Posted by ENT

Another one of his hairbrained explanations, how the exterior beams of WTC1 and 2 snapped off in a straight line, an impossibility as the pillars were made of interlocking steel plates set in a zig-zag pattern.

That line of breaks look as though they've been deliberately cut by charges, not by stress from overheated steel floor joists.

Actually, that line of breaks DEFINITELY look as though they have _NOT_ been deliberately cut by charges. Where are the uneven or blackened surfaces ?
Where is your analytical ability, ENT ?

Could it be a simulation ?

Any reply to the "theory" ?

Ah yes...of course ! How else could the photo be so clear and smoke-free, as well as looking so uniform in colour ?

Typical.....ENT finds something on the net, doesn't research it properly, and posts it as gospel truth. Turkey !

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And another thing. Why would they bother blowing up the WTC anyway?

You haven't read the link in post#3685

Bit of a coincidence?

WTC 7 was a 47 story office building. It would be the largest building in most US Cities. It's tenants; The CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, US Secret Service, and SEC to name a few. It collapsed on 9/11 at 520 EST. The BBC Reported at 4:54 EST (All on Tape, All over Youtube)

Anyone else find it ironic that the guys name is Shyam?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Unless, of course, the NIST is actually a shadow government spook organisation now as well.

Jeeez - ya think?

Who is S Shyam Sunder?

Shyam Sunder....Hmmmm.

NO WIKIPEDIA PAGE

NO HISTORY AVAILABLE ONLINE

USES THE SAME NAME AS FAMOUS INDIAN POETS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND DOCTORS.

Amazing how a man with no history can make such a globally pivotal decision no?

It was all a Shyam!

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Unless, of course, the NIST is actually a shadow government spook organisation now as well.

Jeeez - ya think?

National Institute of Standards and Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the whole of the NIST wiki page there is ONE mention of Shyam Sunder. As I said - he has no page - his name is not clickable.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-...
A former NIST employee made the following statements regarding NIST's politicization and corruption (these emails were forwarded to me by a prominent 9/11 truth activist, I simply edited them to remove names so as to protect the anonymity of the whistleblower):
Communication dated October 1, 2007:
"NBS/NIST had become fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm well before he became involved. That hijacking happened in the mid-90's, and has only grown stronger to the present. Prior to that time, the Director of NBS/NIST was appointed via the political process (Presidential nomination, Congressional confirmation), but with the firm understanding in the scientific community that the job was essentially a non-political one, as the leader of the government's premiere scientific research institution. Directors were carefully selected from a field of well-known senior scientists with management skills, typically from within the NBS staff, after gaining much credibility in their fields. Once appointed, Directors tended to stay on for several years, through different administrations in an essentially career mode, usually until they retired. That all changed under the Clinton administration.
I saw it happen. After retirement from the Army, in 1983 I joined then-NBS as a scientist on the staff. After 3 years, I decided to move on (engineering on the Star Wars project). Becoming sick of that charade in 1989, I succumbed to my former boss' entreaties and returned to now-NIST in a supervisory scientist position at the top civil service grade. I retired from there in 2001, and worked as a part-time contractor for them until last year. So I've had a chance to observe some of the higher-level NIST goings-on up close and personal for some time, and was personally involved in some of its politicization.
I don't know whether the NBS Director, Dr. John Lyons, was forced into retirement by the Clinton administration; I just remember the abruptness of the change after only 3 years on his job. He was replaced by a relatively unknown and also quite young scientist from DARPA. What I remember about her is her lack of credibility in representing NIST in scientific circles, her choice of senior staff with little regard for their scientific standing, and her keen emphasis on political sensitivities. She departed after a long four years, and the Director's office (and hence the whole Institute) has been in turmoil ever since. Four of her six successors to the present time have been "Acting", meaning in a practical sense that they may well not have had the personal credibility and scientific standing to survive the scrutiny of the confirmation process.
About the time of this major reduction in stature of the Director's office, some other major shifts took place at NIST, the echoes of which may have direct relevance to [9/11 truth]. Prior to that time, we were focused on scientific research and standards development that tended to be independent of what other government agencies were doing. All of a sudden, the senior levels of NIST were flooded with what I perhaps over-harshly termed "political commisars", whose job was principally to deal with what may be called "the political sensitivities" of our work and also making sure it supported big industry.
That support became an overtly-stated major mission for us. We lost a major share of our direct research funding, and from then on have been largely dependent upon receiving funds from other government agencies (the majority from Depts of Defense and Energy) for research and standards-making to support their own work. This "other agency" work amounted to about 40% of our total budget in my last several years there. In essence, we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than "hired guns".
When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.
Sorry this blurb became overly long, but I did want to make sure that an "insider's view" got onto the record."
Email dated October 2, 2007:
"A little more general insight into what I referred to as the NIST politicization, some of which may be of interest to you. In addition to the NIST "front office" looking closely over our shoulders, we had three major external oversight groups keeping close track of our little part of NIST, which admittedly dealt at times with some sensitive issues regarding technological security.
One was NSA (no surprises there!), another was the HQ staff of the Department of Commerce, which scrutinized our work very closely and frequently wouldn't permit us to release papers or give talks without changes to conform to their way of looking at things. A third was a bit of a surprise to some -- the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on our work. Just as a reminder, the OMB is an arm of the Executive Office of the President.
One more tidbit - a gentleman named William A Jeffrey served as NIST Director from July 2005 until last month. Interestingly, Dr. Jeffrey's previous assignment was in the EOP's Office of Science and Technology Policy! Talk about high-level oversight!! So one can be certain that on so hot a topic as yours, Dr. Jeffrey (and his previous political handlers in the WH - if they still were "previous") would be very personally involved at every step.
I don't know what more I can add that might be relevant, as I have been once-removed from NIST for the past 6 years as a contractor via [a defense company]. However, I do have some good NIST friends who are rather highly placed, so if you have any other questions re NIST, I might be able to ferret out an answer. Would be worth a shot anyway."


A NIST Whistleblower

Hey ENT, regards the Insurance issue.

The Insurance company has payed Larry 7 million or billion dollars.

If this was a conspiracy why did'nt they put a bit of the money the Lawyers way and briing this issue to court.

Test the conspiracy theory in a Court of Law.

Surly considering you and you're mates are so sure it was definately a conspiracy they could not lose the this case.

I mean, look at all the evidence you guys have.

Insurance company is well coined up ENT and can afford the court fees.

Not happenning is it ENT.

Why not ENT ?

Because you and you're mates have sweet fuk all to bring to a Court.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Please read Steven E. Jones; A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11

Finally, Szymanski starts in on the threats of what Jones has coming to him in the future:

"Jones should be prepared for some near death experiences of his own, since crossing the line with Daddy Bush is sometimes hazardous to one's health"


Scary bloke Daddy Bush

In contrast to the evil fucks that were/are the bush's,

here's a few quotes from a quality American president.

"Kinship among nations is not determined in such measurements as proximity of size and age. Rather we should turn to those inner things — call them what you will — I mean those intangibles that are the real treasures free men possess. To preserve his freedom of worship, his equality before law, his liberty to speak and act as he sees fit, subject only to provisions that he trespass not upon similar rights of others — a Londoner will fight. So will a citizen of Abilene. When we consider these things, then the valley of the Thames draws closer to the farms of Kansas and the plains of Texas"

"We must be ready to dare all for our country. For history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. We must acquire proficiency in defense and display stamina in purpose. We must be willing, individually and as a Nation, to accept whatever sacrifices may be required of us. A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. These basic precepts are not lofty abstractions, far removed from matters of daily living. They are laws of spiritual strength that generate and define our material strength. Patriotism means equipped forces and a prepared citizenry. Moral stamina means more energy and more productivity, on the farm and in the factory. Love of liberty means the guarding of every resource that makes freedom possible--from the sanctity of our families and the wealth of our soil to the genius of our scientists."

And spookily fucking relevent again at this current time in history - yet now with an internal enemy to face

"May the light of freedom, coming to all darkened lands, flame brightly — until at last the darkness is no more. May the turbulence of our age yield to a true time of peace, when men and nations shall share a life that honors the dignity of each, the brotherhood of all"

"You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely."

Originally Posted by terry57

The Insurance company has payed Larry 7 million or billion dollars.

Only after legal proceedings which were behind closed doors and without juries. Now go back and read the link in #3685 and you will see a particular judge ruled against the insurers. Please read the link.

So anyway,

Lets stop pissing around with all this other shit and get back to the big money issue.

You guys reckon it was a conspiracy comitted by Larry.

It was all Larry's doing because he wanted the big pay day from an Insurance claim.

He wanted to off the Towers because they where full of Aspestos { spelling fuked I know } and it was going to cost to much to over haul the Towers.

Ok, thats the theory concerning the Towers.

Regards the Pentagon, Why fire a missile into the fuking thing ?

I mean Larry don't give a fuk about the Pentagon EH.

WTC 7 ? Oh OK, lets just off that for a little giggle

So we have Larry blowing up the Towers for the Insurance money and the rest of the shit, Who fuking knows. ????

So In America one will sue you if you fart in there general direction. So here we have a so called massive conspiracy with untold evidence and the Insurance company has shelled out Billions of dollars with out even a wimper.

You guys are so fuking nuts.

Regards the conspiracy theory, you have many different agencies needed to pull it off simply because Larry could not off arranged all of it. He only wanted the Towers offed for the money EH.

So where are all the dudes hiding ??

The silence is deafining.

Originally Posted by terry57

the Insurance company has shelled out Billions of dollars with out even a wimper.

Rubbish. They took their case to court. They fought the case for years and I still don't think they've paid out fully to date.
Out of all the buildings that were hid/damaged by the 9/ll attack in New York only Larry's collapsed, and had structional upgrades done to them, and were over insured, just prior to the attacks. Sorry my mistake, WTC 7 wasn't hit. It caught fire, alledgedly.

Yes the insurance company pays in the name of national security, they're re insured anyway. Maybe Munich Re. And later, some extra business and bailouts came its way. The WTC buldings were #1, 2 and 3 of highrises that alledgedly collapsed by fire. None before, none other since. What are the odds?

^ And if skyscrapers can be made to collapse from fire only you'd think their design would be change accordingly. That has not happened since the fall of the towers.

Oh yes,

And dont tell me they fired a missile into the Pentagon so they would have an agenda to go marching off to war Either.

Actually concerning the Twin Towers,

ENT reckons that if the planes had failed in there mission to hit the Towers that day Larry still would of offed them because he had them rigged with thermite.

After all, ENT reckons larry dropped WTC 7 and no planes hit that so why fuk around flying planes into the Towers in the first place.

So I asked ENT why even bother with the planes. ?

ENT's answer was this................................

No answer.

Larry could of made his Insurance claim without going to the huge amount of work and risk arranging for the planes to hit the towers.

See just how fuking stupid the conspiracy theory is ?

There was no need at all to actually do it.

None what so ever. Did not need it for the Insurance claim and did not need it to go to war.

The yanks would of went in regardless as they always do.

Originally Posted by terry57

ENT reckons larry dropped WTC 7 and no planes hit that so why fuk around flying planes into the Towers in the first place. So I asked ENT why even bother with the planes. ? ENT's answer was this................................ No answer.

Terry, do you not think it might have looked a bit suspicious if they would of used demolitions explosives to destroy the buildings in the middle of a beautiful morning in downtown Manhatton?

Surely someone would have noticed

Originally Posted by terry57

Larry could of made his Insurance claim without going to the huge amount of work and risk arranging for the planes to hit the towers.

How?

Originally Posted by terry57

larry dropped WTC 7 and no planes hit that so why fuk around flying planes into the Towers in the first place.

The WTC 7 was a minnow amongst a crowd in that the towers were the easiest of the 3 targets. Strange that the only buildings to collapse that day were owned by Larry?

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Rubbish. They took their case to court. They fought the case for years and I still don't think they've paid out fully to date.

OK, now we are getting somewhere,

The Insurance company take the case to court and have some of the finest legal minds in America handling there case.

We are talking top notch best in Amerca legal minds here mind you,they would destroy a story in a millisecond if they can find an avenue of attack.

These guys are ruthless in a court of Law and leave nothing unturned.

So what was the outcome ?

They lost there primary case and Larry recieved his money.

He's still going for more which he will more than likely get.

Conspiracy theory just cant hold up in the strongest court of law in Ammerica simply because it did not happen that way.

Jesus wept, you guys reckon you have all this evidence but in reality you do not.

You guys have the finest minds in the Western world to help you bring out the truth but they cant fuking do it simply because the conspiracy theory is a massive crock of festering shit.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

The WTC 7 was a minnow amongst a crowd in that the towers were the easiest of the 3 targets. Strange that the only buildings to collapse that day were owned by Larry?

Its a fact that they where owned by Larry, so if it is so obvious to you and you're mates that he rigged them to implode why cant the Insurance companies use you're evidence to win the case in court.

Waiting Waiting Waiting ?????

Originally Posted by terry57

OK, now we are getting somewhere, The Insurance company take the case to court and have some of the finest legal minds in America handling there case. We are talking top notch best in Amerca legal minds here mind you,they would destroy a story in a millisecond if they can find an avenue of attack. These guys are ruthless in a court of Law and leave nothing unturned. So what was the outcome ? They lost there primary case and Larry recieved his money. He's still going for more which he will more than likely get.

Yes, unfortunately there was no evidence left after they had blown it all to shit. And let's face it - the amount of scum this whole event has uncovered, it's no large jump to conclude that there was some underhand corrupt legal collusion from within the system that helped larry win the money.




















Oh look, there was, - the bent judge who presided over the case.


Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

9/11 Widow & Lawyer sanctioned by Corrupt Zionist Judge | Veterans Today