Home › Blogs › Winter's blog

Stack Of Reports Proves It: Office Furnishings Killed Building 7

Fri, 08/22/2008 - 04:01 — Winter
In a press conference yesterday, Shyam Sunder, who represents the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] as Lead Investigator of the World Trade Center Disaster, [...] said:
Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.
No kidding. Office furnishings!

you can read more here or comment below.

Comments

Fri, 08/22/2008 - 06:05 — james

FURNISHINGS!!!

When I saw the headline on my local news service that a 9/11 "mystery" had been solved, I didn't look as I KNEW it would be bullshit. But I never thought for a minute it'd be as bad as this! Unbelievable . . . furnishings!! This really is becoming Alice in Wonderland.

Fri, 08/22/2008 - 09:22 — littlehorn

What about this building ?

I haven't followed much of your reporting on the conspiracy I'm afraid. Can you tell me what was so terrible about building 7 that it had to be destroyed ? What did the culprits gain by doing that...? Not that I have to get a motive, but I'm curious to hear what's known/rumored on that level.

I did enjoy this dismantling though.

Fri, 08/22/2008 - 10:35 — Winter

Two main reasons...

Two main reasons have been advanced to explain why WTC 7 had to be destroyed:

-- it contained records from investigations into major securities fraud, evidence which would have put some major players out of business and behind bars if the investigations had been completed.

-- the city's emergency response center was located in building 7 (although it was officially unused on the day of the attacks), and some people suspect that this was used as the headquarters of the NYC part of the 9/11 plot.

Some researchers have suggested that the plane that was shot down in Pennsylvania was supposed to hit WTC 7. According to this hypothesis, the passengers unexpectedly took control of the plane and then it had to be shot down, otherwise the passengers themselves would have exposed the bogus nature of the "terrorist attacks" ... Then, having taken down the plane, the conspirators were forced to destroy the building without slamming an airplane into it, or so the speculation runs.

It's the lack of airplane impact that makes the building 7 "collapse" more difficult to "explain" than the "collapses" of the other two towers.

Fri, 08/22/2008 - 23:11 — james

WTC7

Just for completeness.... IF there was a plane sceduled to bump into WTC7, then the building would have been all wired up ready for it's arrival. What to do with the explosives in the face of a "no-show"? They are kind of incriminating.

Sun, 08/24/2008 - 16:13 — sam (not verified)

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that they claim diesel tanks could not bring the building down, yet office furnishings can(they must line office furnishings with thermate cutting charges nowadays)

Mon, 08/25/2008 - 08:22 — Ron (not verified)

So, they take roughly 3

So, they take roughly 3 years to complete their 'report' and then provide the public with only 3 weeks to digest and comment on it? What a fucking crock.

Winter, some time back you said you would be willing to put your analytical skills to the whole issue of how this is being done. How and why all of these institutions and groups, full of professionals in their scientific fields, are doing this. According to the BLS, there were 132,000 architects in 2006 and 256,000 civil engineers in the U.S. alone. Are there really only ~400 of them willing to speak out against this nonsense? Actually less, because I'm sure some of the ones speaking out aren't employed in the U.S. That's pathetic. And again, if they can effectively either usurp or suppress these huge scientific fields, how do you know where it starts and where it ends, and in particular, with regards to AGW.

Then again, they've got the entire population so fucking dumbed down, it's not hard to imagine that these professionals are affected by it too. Just because they go to a highly skilled professional job during the day doesn't mean they don't come home and flip on FOX News or the Jack Bauer Power Hour known as "24".

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if AJ stopped carrying you because of your support of AGW. Not that I would agree with that decision or anything. Just speculating.

Mon, 08/25/2008 - 10:00 — Anonymous (not verified)

OK, I'm just a layman, so

OK, I'm just a layman, so perhaps this is an ignorant question, but with regards to the thermite/thermate question on the NIST website, am I correct in interpreting their answer to mean that, in suggesting that 100 lbs. of thermite (they don't mention thermate - there is a difference, right?) would be needed for each column, they are suggesting that a little over 9 in. of the column would need to be melted, not just weakened, to cause it to fail?

Tue, 08/26/2008 - 23:14 — admin
admin's picture

good catch- i noticed a few others are picking up on that too

It's pretty crazy that such an argument is put forth let alone considered proof of something;
It seems to me they could cut /melt an inch or less in height on a 45 degree angle to completely fail each girder; with NIST's numbers that's less than 9 lbs of thermite per column.
Does putting forth such speculation "prove" that the building was destroyed with thermite? Not any more (or less) than NIST's theory proves anything. smiling

-NJT

Tue, 08/26/2008 - 13:57 — Ron (not verified)

What's taking so long for

What's taking so long for comments to be approved? Or were my previous two comments unapproved?

Tue, 08/26/2008 - 22:08 — admin
admin's picture

Sorry about that Ron

I've had a busy week and forgot to check comments for the past day or two, plus I think a couple slow days of no anonymous comments got me complacent; but I noticed you're a full fledged member now so you can post comments and they'll show up immediately.
-NJT

Wed, 08/27/2008 - 12:59 — Anonymous (not verified)

Simple models, less mind boggling.

If they want a simple model of what happened they should try this:

Insure the dog house. Then take a stick of dynamite and blow the dog house up. Tell the kids that the neighbors did it and then give them some rocks to throw at the neighbors.

All of this could be accomplished in a day or two without computers.

NJT: I can't seem to comment... am I banned?

ICGREEN

Fri, 08/29/2008 - 21:29 — Ron

Well they probably don't

Well they probably don't expect anyone to be able to recreate the 'models', since they would appear to require a supercomputer cluster, but this article talks about using powerful computer graphics cards (4 in one computer) to do calculations and it achieves some amazing results. I wonder if the A&E truthers are developing their own model. A computer to replace NIST's supercomputers could be built for less than 3 or 4 grand.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/07/07/231363/graphics-chips-...

"...

The university has built a supercomputer called Fastra to perform large-scale scientific computations. Fastra contains four Nvidia 9800GX2 graphics cards, that each contain two Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), giving a total of eigth graphics processors. By using these eight GPUs in parallel, the lab can obtain supercomputer performance - equal to a cluster of hundreds of PCs within a single PC, according to BatenBurg.

...

"Having eight graphics processors work in parallel allows this system to perform as fast as 350 modern CPU cores for our tomography tasks, reducing the reconstruction times from several weeks (on a normal PC) to hours," he said.

Fastra is made completely from consumer hardware, the same type of cards computer enthusiasts buy off-the-shelf from PC retailers. It is built from four Nvidia 9800GX2 graphics cards - more than 1,000 small processors working together. The hardware has cost the university less than E4,000. This replaces a 512 processor cluster machine which would have originally cost E3.5m.

As Fastra is not a general purpose computer, its power heavily depends on the particular application it is used for. The research group has focused on the 3D tomography computations. For these computations, which can easily take weeks on a normal PC, Fastra performs as fast as more than 300 Intel CPU cores (Core Duo, running at 2.4GHz), giving the results in under an hour.

"Our local supercomputer cluster consisting of 512 Opteron cores, which cost millions of euros when constructed in 2005, is actually outpaced by Fastra in some cases," said BatenBurg.

..."

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.