Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition

by Scott Creighton (reposted from Aug. 22, 2008)

Yesterday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a division of the Department of Commerce, finally released it’s report on the cause of the mysterious collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex. There have already been several to jump out in front and claim that this puts an end to the “conspiracy theories” that have surrounded Building 7’s inexplicable destruction, since it happened on Sept. 11th 2001.

We really have a new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here, which is a fire induced progressive collapse. In fact, we have shown for the first time, that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”. Shyam Sunder. (first time in history and flies in the face of what we know about engineering and the laws of physics. But, they NEVER tested for explosive residue and yet, this is the “first time” this “new” phenomenon occurred? Right.)

Steven Jones and Richard Gage have already come forward and denounced NIST’s finding as implausible.

NIST’s entire theory is based on the idea that regular office fires burned hot enough to cause a failure of a key connection in a key area that cause “global” and symmetrical failure to occur. This is highly improbable at best (since it never happened in the history of steel framed high-rise buildings). NIST is basing their findings, not on forensic evidence but rather a computer simulation; a computer simulation that they programed and tweakedandif it’s anything like their “computer simulation” they did to come up with the “global collapse” scenario of the North and South Towers, then they will NEVER allow an architect or engineer anywhere near the simulation program so they can evaluate it’s accuracy.

But that isn’t the big news flash that should be coming out of this report. The fact is, it looks like the sole reasons that NIST is claiming that they concluded there was no “controlled demolition” of Building 7 appears to be coming from Mark Loizeaux; the owner of the demolitioncompany that was on scene of the WTC destruction right after 9/11 and a man by his own admission, called his friends in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001 and told them to get out of the area because he knew the buildings would come down.

Mark Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having been a contributing contractor for the report.

They took the word of the owner of the controlled demolition company that was on-site right after the WTCs fell (and possibly even before) contracted to do “clean-up” while search and rescue teams were still looking for survivors, rather than testing for explosive residue. That’s right, NIST has admitted they NEVER tested for the tell-tale evidence of explosive residueat the WTC site.

Starting on page 22 of NIST’s report, Chapter 3.3 Hypothetical Blast Senarios, NIST dedicates only 2 pages (of the reports 110) to the investigation of whether or not controled demolition was the cause of this strange collapse.

In those two pages, NIST explains the two pieces of evidence that they used to come to this conclusion. One is that the sounds of the collapse differ from that of what would be “expected” to have occurred were this to be a controlled demolition; based solely on yet another software program that is designed to anticipate what a blast would sound like. Once again, this “evidence” is programed by NIST and will probably not be available for peer review.

But the most telling of their ‘evidence” in this section, we have heard before. It comes straight from the BBC’s hit piece on Building 7 Conspiracy Theoriesthat came out about a month ago. That film featured Mark Loizeaux, owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., giving his reasons why the WTC Building 7 could not have been a controlled demolition. He said in short, that over-pressure from the blasts would have caused window breakage on every surrounding building, on ALL sides of the buildings, and that there was no way around it. Therefore, it could NOT have been a controlled demolition.

I did a little research and found, on CDI’s site, a description of the demolition of the J.L. Hudson building (video below) that clearly described one of the key problems that demolition faced as being the window breakage of the surrounding buildings, and that CDI PROUDLY BOASTED that they were able to drop the building (the exact same square footage of Building 7) without breaking many windows at all facing the explosions, much less the windows on the opposite sides of the demolition.

Now, NIST presents it’s only real “evidence” that there was no controlled demolition as ONCE AGAIN a computer program simulation based on one massive cutter charge, would cause “different window breakage as was witnessed at 4:00pm on Building 7”.

This computer simulation comes from a demolition design program.

Did they have CDI and Mark Loizeaux, the prime suspects in a controlled demolition scenario, produce this simulation on their own demolition software? Does this “prove” that controlled demolition didn’t happen on 9/11?

Because this and the “expectedsound” simulation, is the ONLY evidence that NISTprovides us with to discredit the controlled demolition hypothesis, in their new report on Building 7.

NIST DID NOT test for explosive charge residue in any of the remaining debris from Building 7.

Steven Jones and others have found conclusive evidence of the residual trace elements of Thermite and Thermate in dust from 9/11 as well as in the remaining molten metal evidence.

How could NIST, a government agency tasked with protecting the interests of American citizens, not test for explosive residues AFTER several accredited experts have reported they have found them?

How could NIST turn over to CDI, a company that was on site immediately after 9/11 and obtained many government contracts since 9/11, the task of looking for evidence of controlled demolition when CDI is in fact the leading suspect if such an investigation would be conducted in earnest?

Ironically, the computer models of the “heat expansion” theory are based solely on the concept of “one key column” being compromised, and the controlled demolition theory “computer simulation” was based on exactly the same thing.

Below you will find a Youtube video of controled demolition of a building. The reason I include it is to show that companies like CDI are very capable of demoing buildings WITHOUT blowing out their windows.

We need to demand to see NISTs computer simulations to make damn sure that they haven’t been “tweaked” like the WTC 1 and 2 simulations were. We also need to demand to know if CDI created the “blast senario” simulations on their own computer assisted demolition program. CDI’s records should be seizedimmediately and gone over with a fine tooth comb.

This kind of “evidence” is unbelievable coming from an agency like NIST.

JL Hudson Building blows up. watch the glass remain intact.

WTC7, one of the few videos with sound. Listen to the ‘explosions” in the first part of the video and the firemen talking about the building about to “blow up”.

After you can clearly hear an explosion in the video, someone on the video asks someone else… Did you hear that?”

NIST counters this kind of evidence as well as the explosive residues found by other qualified aganciesand people, with a computer simulation probably done by the one company that would be the prime suspects in a real investigation.

What’s worse is that they probably PAIDhundreds of thousands of our tax-payer dollars for this “evidence”. Mark Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having been a contributing contractor for the report.

Advertisements

10 Responses

  1. Also did you see the slight flashes of light.. in about three sections of the building that was controlled demoed? Just like you see in the towers before they start to explode….
    great work, Willyloman….

  2. […] hours before it happened — blaming fire that induced a ‘progressive collapse.’ WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint. This is the second time the NIST has released flimsy […]

  3. […] Administration and their “percent of a percent chance” doctrine that they and their supporters have been going by these past eight years you might as well put it in stone as gospel somewhere […]

  4. Is it too late to say great post? 🙂

    This was right around the time that I started my one man demolition company…

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-demolition-company.html

  5. Same day actually. No takers yet. Can’t figure out why either. I work cheap!

  6. I went ahead and posted an ad for both of our companies. I’m sure as soon as enough people learn about the amazing discovery of NIST there will be plenty of work to go around. You might think they would just do it themselves, but when they learn that those portable fire dispensers are akin to high explosives, forget about it! Ballsy guys like us will be rolling in the dough then!

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-demolition-company-update.html

  7. Scott Creighton, you fucken cocksucker. How dare you point a finger at Mark Loizeaux and CDI. My Uncle worked with his crew you little cocksucker and they were at ground zero from the first damn hour of the attack!

    Fuck you, you little shitbag. There was no controlled demollition. Better yet, if you got the balls mother fucker, e-mail me

    [edit by mod]
    I’m sick of you little pissant conspiracy fucks!

  8. I had to remove your posted email address… only because there is no way for me to verify whether or not you are the person you are posting as, or whether you are just setting someone up for some hate mail.

    I have you email from when you sign in to leave a comment.

  9. by the way… you say CDI’s crew was on site right after the first plane hit? That’s interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: