Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

Home Forums Discussion Forum 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued. Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.


Danny Jowenko’s remarks have caused me to revise my balance of probabilities again; I think he could well have been right. An emergency demolition with thermite could explain the “partially evaporated steel” documented in the FEMA Building Performance Report. Keeping this purported demolition secret could explain why Con Edison’s court victory was overturned on Silverstein Properties’ appeal, and why part of that appeal was settled out of court with the technical response to the ARUP report withheld from the public – I think these legal details are right, I’m working from memory here, but check the UAF Report which is where I discovered them.

It could also explain why NIST kept much of their WTC7 report secret, and why their collapse scenario is such a bodge. And NIST’s purported “public safety” excuse for withholding some of their data?…

Well the firefighters must have known about any sudden, unlicensed demolition, and indeed, famously, there is video of firefighters warning people away from WTC7 saying it’s about to “blow up”. I have always thought it impossible that the New York firefighters would help cover up any demolition of the Twin Towers, because hundreds of the Brothers were killed in the collapse of WTC2…

But in the aftermath of 9/11 firefighters were dying from asbestos-induced illnesses. But admission of a sudden unlicensed demolition would have made accomplices of any firefighter who knew; firefighters themselves could have been held partly culpable for the asbestos contamination. Could NIST’s “public safety” issue be to do with compensation and health-care costs for retired firefighters injured by asbestos? If NIST had revealed this potential secret demolition, would compensation and health-care payments have been interrupted while the matter went back to court? And would that have provoked a strike by the firefighters? I’d call that a “public safety issue”.