Why 2,300 Architects & Engineers Demand Independent Investigation

PART 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth of WTC 7's "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories

Editor's Note: This fascinating and provocative technical piece on NIST's manipulation of the WTC 7 evidence is broken down into a series of six articles. The second installment (below) is PART 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7's "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories. The first installment was the INTRODUCTION. Stand by for the next four installments, to be published monthly.

A
Figure 2. We will be showing this "Plan View of Collapse Progression" graphic in three installments of this series of articles, starting with this installment, where we have labeled it "A." The identical graphic will be labeled "B" and "C" in the next two installments. NIST's 2004 Progress Report depicts a mythical hole supposedly "scooped out" of the center of the bottom 10 floors of Building 7. Figure L-31 in Appendix L of the report refers to the hole as the "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris." Since this damage did not exist in reality, NIST backpedaled and did not include its discredited Figure L-31 in the final 2008 report.

In its infamous 2005 article, "Debunking the 9/11 Myths," Popular Mechanics quoted NIST director Shyam Sunder asserting that falling debris from the North Tower poked a huge "gouge" in the front of WTC 7: "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7." Sunder went on to say, "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." [Emphasis added]

Remarkably, Sunder made this definitive statement despite having no solid evidence to back it up. In fact, a careful reading of its 2004 preliminary report reveals that NIST simply cherry-picked one eyewitness statement, even though other witnesses refute this dramatic, specific, and provably false claim of damage.

Specifically, the statement about the 10-story gouge appears on page 18 of NIST's 2004 report, but NIST conveniently ignored two other comments on the same page that are in conflict with its conclusion:

Part 13: Prior Knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy and Deep Politics

© by Frances T. Shure, 2014

Editor's Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: "Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?" The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, the November segment — Signal Detection Theory — examined how the "signal" of 9/11 Truth can be drowned out by excessive "noise" that comes from our information-overloaded world, our prior beliefs, and our psychological state of being.

Here, in the December installment, we continue Ms. Shure's analysis with Part 13: Prior Knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy and Deep Politics, which explores how our prior knowledge of state crimes by governments, as well as our knowledge of the deep state — as opposed to the visible public state in which we participate as citizens — affects our reception of evidence that indicates we have been lied to about 9/11.

People with prior knowledge of corporate and governmental malfeasance, but especially of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), have an increased capacity to accept evidence that contradicts the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Lance deHaven-Smith What are SCADs, and how do they differ from other political crimes? Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University, coined the term “state crimes against democracy” to distinguish them as the illegal or extralegal actions of public officials or elites who manipulate or subvert democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty. In other words, State Crimes Against Democracy are high crimes that attack not only people, but democracy itself.¹

Therefore, according to deHaven-Smith, "election tampering, political assassinations, voter fraud, government graft, non-governmental rogue operations, state counter-democratic actions, and corporate collusion with extralegal initiatives can be classified as SCADs."²

Before September 11, 2001, each of us had varying degrees of knowledge about political intrigue. If, for example, we had already read professor Peter Dale Scott’s Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, or if we already had a solid understanding of known SCADs, such as Iran-Contra,³ the Gulf of Tonkin,⁴ and especially Operation Northwoods,⁵ then we likely had minimal resistance to the evidence pointing to 9/11 as a false-flag operation. On the other hand, those of us who possessed none of this knowledge before 9/11 would have been challenged by a huge paradigm shift when we awoke to the facts that contradicted the official storyline regarding that terrible day.

Video game blogger beats NASA engineer in TV physics contest

Sometimes the truth about 9/11 shows up in the oddest places.

On a recent episode of the TBS reality show King of the Nerds, a bubbly, pink-haired video game blogger named Danielle was the unlikely winner of one phase of a science-related competition that pitted her against a NASA engineer and three other contenders. The most intriguing aspect of her upset win was that Danielle used "9/11 conspiracy" websites to outsmart her rivals.

How did physics-deprived Danielle excel in a physics competition? For the answer, read the article!

Hosted by the stars of the Revenge of the Nerds movies, Robert Carradine and Curtis Armstrong, King of the Nerds features a group of contestants who compete in a series of challenges called "nerd wars" in a location called "Nerdvana." The challenge on this episode involved predicting how many panes of glass — spaced apart vertically in much the same way floors in a high-rise office building are — would be broken when balls of various weights were dropped from a tower.

Why 2,300 Architects & Engineers Demand Independent Investigation

INTRODUCTION

Editor's Note: This fascinating and provocative technical piece on NIST’s manipulation of the WTC 7 evidence is broken down into a series of six articles. The first installment (below) is the INTRODUCTION to the whole series. Stand by for the next five installments in subsequent articles, to be published monthly.

The United States government's official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. "In essence," recalls a NIST whistleblower, "we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"

NIST has made many false written and oral statements about the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 — statements that have now caused 2,300 architects and engineers to question the government investigator's credibility and veracity. One of its most implausible claims is that a high-rise steel structure in New York City was destroyed by fire alone.

Figure 1. NIST's final report states that random office fires alone brought down Building 7. However, the collapse of WTC 7 compared, side by side, with an acknowledged professional controlled demolition reveals an entirely different story. Only a handful of companies have the ability to neatly implode a steel-framed skyscraper into its own footprint like this. Click on this video to see WTC 7 fall next to three acknowledged professional CDs.

Indeed, the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 is the third of the three only known "global collapses" of high-rise, steel-framed buildings ever recorded, and all three incredibly took place in one day: September 11, 2001.

NIST contends that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact damage and consequent fires from the large airliner jets that hit them. But no jet struck WTC 7, and NIST claims that office fires alone demolished that building. The agency does admit that, if true, this would be the first and only time that an office fire brought down a steel skyscraper.

Ultimately, we are asked to accept on faith NIST's ever-changing, remarkable, and, frankly, suspect explanations for WTC 7's destruction.

AE911Truth's Report to the Public

Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan D.A.For eight years, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has sought an impartial, subpoena-powered investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001.

On February 14, 2013, AE911Truth petitioned the office of Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., district attorney in and for New York County, asking Vance for a confidential meeting with him and/or with any members of his staff he chose to designate. Our purpose in requesting this meeting was to discuss the appointment of a special prosecutor, and the calling of a grand jury, to investigate the explosive 12-second destruction of each of the Twin Towers, and the unprecedented free-fall "collapse" of Building 7 on 9/11.

We made a formal offer of proof based on the evidence — forensic evidence that overwhelmingly and irrefutably shows, by itemization of the key facts and by supplemental video of important witnesses, that the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center were destroyed on 9/11 as a result of professionally engineered controlled demolition, not by office fires and/or aircraft collision.

A White Paper on NIST's Omissions, Distortions, and Fraud

Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.