New 9/11 Memorial Time-line Lies About Building 7

by Scott Creighton

SUCCESS… well kinda…

Today the National 9/11 Memorial has correctly labeled Building 5 as Building 5 and they have included a shot of Building 7 while talking about Building 7. That’s kinda a good start.  But, alas, it goes downhill from there…

Their new contribution is fraught with serious problems and misleading statements as well…

Well, at least the got the right building this time

The first problem is that Building 7 was not adjacent to Building 1 or the North Tower as it was called. As you can see, Buildings 5 and 6 were both between Building 7 and the North Tower, and yet, as the National 9/11 Memorial points out, these buildings had to be demoed in order to bring them down.

Second, NIST themselves admits that the damage to Building 7 from the collapsing North Tower did not have significant effect on the eventual collapse of Building 7.

Third, though they have now changed the description of the fires in Building 7 from “raging” to “intense”, fact is, they deliberately chose not to show a picture of the fires in Building 7 (see below) whereas they did show a burning Building 5 and try to pass it off as Building 7 (see below).

The implications of these choices, made by the people at the National 9/11 Memorial,  are significant.

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.

A “new kind” of progressive collapse indeed. The kind of “progressive collapse” that occurs at free-fall acceleration for 2.9 seconds, that defies the laws of physics, and that requires secret 3d models and ample dishonest efforts from the National 9/11 Memorial to explain.

UPDATE: Now 48 hours later, the misleading photo is still up at the National 9/11 Memorial. I have confirmation that several people have sent them info on the matter.

UPDATE: 24 hours after I sent my email to them informing them of this mistake, they still have the same misleading photo up claiming Building 5 is Building 7.

Through sloppy research or deliberate deception, the National 9/11 Memorial is violating their primary mission statement:

“Remember and honor the thousands of innocent men, women, and children murdered by terrorists in the horrific attacks of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001.” National 9/11 Memorial mission statement

A new 9/11 Memorial interactive timeline uses photos of Building 5 in place of real images of Building 7 in order to make the damage to the building look more severe. Ironically, Building 5, though it suffered tremendously more damage from falling debris and fires on that day, actually remained standing for 2 months after 9/11, while the building they choose not to show, the real Building 7, with far less damage, collapsed into its own footprint that day.

Now let’s remember what Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST investigation said about their findings on the complete destruction of Building 7 that day…

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.

The official story of 9/11 is that for the “first time” in history, normal office fires caused the complete global collapse of a steel and concrete hi-rise structure. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the new 9/11 Memorial photo, shall we?

This is the image that they claim is of Building 7 burning. It’s actually Building 5

New 9/11 Memorial lies to you

This is building 5

This is Building 5

and this is the real Building 7 and the fires that NIST claims caused its global collapse at 5:20pm on Sept. 11th 2001.

As you can see, the fires in Building 7 were burning out as the photos were being taken on Sept 11th 2001.

Now, to see the contrast between Building 5 and Building 7, how they ended up that day.

First, look at Building 5, which the “experts” falsely identified as Building 7, still standing on Sept 12th 2001. Notice Building 6 next to it, also still standing….

and this is what happened to Building 7. It was dropped neatly in between two other buildings, not part of the WTC complex…

The man who provided the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the reason that they shouldn’t test for high explosives, Mark Loizeaux, said it wasn’t a controlled demolition because it didn’t “sound” like one and because there were not “enough” blown out windows around the Trade Center complex area.

It just so happens that Mark Loizeaux owns the world’s leading explosive controlled demolition company, CDI, and he was in New York on 9/11, he called people he knew in the area when the buildings were still standing and told them they were coming down, he had studied the construction designs of the Twin Towers, and he was in Building 7 just two months prior to Sept. 11th 2001… around the same time an employee of CDI, Tom Sullivan, received his explosives handler’s license in New York City.

Oh yeah, CDI was in charge of cleaning up the dust and other materials AFTER 9/11…

“We’re part of a team in a 14-month project with the Deutsche Bank, including cleaning up the 9/11 dust.””I did a report on the World Trade Center when I was at college and I knew exactly how it was built .” “so when the SECOND plane hit I said: “Start calling all the cellphones, tell them that the building is going to come down.” “Of course, building number 7, which is where the emergency management headquarters was, was on fire. I’D BEEN IN THAT OFFICE TWO MONTHS BEFORE.” Mark Loizeaux

Also of note, Protec, a company that CDI uses to monitor seismic activity in neighboring buildings when they do an explosive controlled demolition, just happened to be there as well, and they had their equipment set up.

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm…”

“Protec was engaged in vibration monitoring activities for private construction sites in Manhattan on Sept. 11th 2001Blanchard of Protec

Now you might think that the 9/11 Memorial Timeline just made a simple mistake. But if anyone is an expert on the WTC complex and 9/11, it’s them right?  How many odd coincidences are people going to ignore when it comes to 9/11? multiple demolition crews on site on 9/11 calling people in the area warning them of the impending destruction of the buildings… getting licenses to plant explosives and visiting the building that is later misidentified by those experts over at the 9/11 Memorial…

It used to be tragic how much the people of this country will put up with. Now it borders on farce.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. It is amazing that they are re-writing events as we watch……. guess many people don’t remember building 7….. and what it looked like……

    and with the repeated ‘promise’ of food prices going way up and hinting that people need to think about having gardens……. I have seen an article everyday for the past week suggesting that people get ready for food shortage, gas shortage; blaming it on revolutions and bad weather across the world.

    Guess Obama had reason to dance last night….

  2. And the icing on the cake? All this while Jon Stewart is interviewing Donald Rumsfeld… and not even pretending to ask him serious questions…

  3. I watched that. it was disgusting. Rummy was telling Jon what words he could use and not use. Stewart was literally sitting across the desk from a war criminal yucking it up with him trying his best to look like he had to do it so that he wouldn’t lose all credibility with his mindless audience.

  4. a war criminal who announced the missing 2.3 trillion dollars on Sept. 10th 2001… he’s a fucking traitor and a terrorist.

  5. I just sent a copy of this to the 9/11 Memorial of which, as you know, Jon Stewart is on the board of directors.

  6. excellent take, as usual. very impressive how you have such a handle on the history, and utilize background photos and information.

    re “It used to be tragic how much the people of this country will put up with. Now it borders on farce.” sad but true. so little hope for the zomboids that have been absorbed by and into the illusion.

  7. I just checked, they still haven’t changed the image and I am sure other Truth sites on onto this by now. I think Blogger is actually. What I should do is send a copy of this to Robert De Niro who is on their board of directors and see what he says about it.

  8. yeah, de niro, why not?

  9. Speaking of CDI and Mark Loizeaux, another curious statement from the 2004 New Scientist interview involves the job of demolishing buildings “hit by planes.”

    The entire interview is transcribed at

    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/new_scientist/BaltimoreBlast_Loizeaux.html

    To the question, “Is demolition too different a world?” [that is, different from computer models] Mark Loizeaux replied as follows:

    “Yes. You move into a different category of structure that is distressed – failed yet standing structures that have failed as functioning structures because they break building codes or have been burnt, struck by lightning or tragically these days bombed or hit by planes.”

    So, according to Mark Loizeaux, a normal part of the business is to demolish distressed buildings, “structures that have failed as functioning structures” after being “bombed or hit by planes.”

    HIT BY PLANES? Huh?

    I wonder, specifically what building or buildings could CDI’s Mark Loizeaux have had in mind when he referred in that 2004 interview to the controlled demolition of failed structures that had been (“tragically,” Loizeaux added) “bombed or hit by planes”? The search feature at CDI’s website did not yield any relevant hits for “plane” or “airplane.”

    Well, surely Loizeaux meant tragic accidents involving planes crashing into buildings, accidentally, but he says “bombed or hit by planes” which seems to suggest acts of terrorism, or events perceived as such. In any case it might be good to learn more about the history of professionally demolishing buildings hit by planes.

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: