It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Controlled Demolition, Inc. Hired by NIST to Investigate WTC7?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Did anybody read the NIST's update released Dec. 12, 2006?

It appears that the NIST has hired a subcontractor to do the investigation on whether or not a controlled demolition brought down WTC7. They refer to this subcontractor as ARA. Who is ARA?

What's more interesting is that the NIST report states that CDI (presumably Controlled Demolition, Inc.) has been hired as a subcontractor of ARA to evaluate the contrlled demo theory.

Isn't this like asking the cat to investigate who ate the canary?

Here's a link to the NIST update on WTC7:

wtc.nist.gov...


Also, you can read between the lines and get a good idea of what the final NIST report is going to say about the controlled demo theory:

1) Controlled demo was impossible because it would have blown out windows,

2) Controlled demo was impossible because it would have made loud noises prior to the collapse, and

3) Controlled demo would have required tons of explosives that would have taken weeks, if not months, to place in WTC7, in order to bring down WTC7.

However, #3 is where the NIST will trip themselves up. They will conclude that it would have taken tons of explosives to bring down WTC7, say that it would have been impossible to prepare tons of explosives, and therefore conclude that ZERO explosives were needed to bring down WTC7.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
thats what i dont get.....how can it take tons of explosives yet they tell us it fell because of damage from falling debris and fire???



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
so what your saying is that TRAINED PROFESSIONALS will tell you EXACTLY what many other people have been saying for years...and you will STILL not believe them???

wow man and they call the people who don't think 9-11 was a conspirocy dillusional...



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Control Demolition Inc,

will do whatever the gov wants them to do.

www.pbs.org...

1996 interview,

Interview with Stacey Loizeaux from CDI.

speaking of the Oklahoma City Federal Building



And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams. The whole building was basically full of, you know, classified information. So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate—thousands and thousands of pieces of paper




How, bloody well convenient!! The same company that arrived to make sure *CLASSIFIED* material was re-covered (and who also finnished the the Oklahoma City Federal Building demolition)


Is now going to tell us why a 47ft Steel Structure feel, Bldg 7 which housed *Classified Material* with the CIA and other things holding office there.

OF course the company that was entrusted in the past with *CLASSIFIED* material is just working for the gov.

Nothing impartial, nothing fair, nothing independent.

This stinks to high heaven.







[edit on 13-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
so what your saying is that TRAINED PROFESSIONALS will tell you EXACTLY what many other people have been saying for years...and you will STILL not believe them???


There's no need to tell me what I'm saying, especially if you can't get it right. Try reading what I'm saying.

It's been over 5 years since WTC7 collapsed, and the NIST still hasn't determined how the building collapsed. Now they have announced that they've hired the same contractor who removed the evidence to theorize on the controlled demolition theory.

Wouldn't it have made more sense for the government to ask that CDI secure the steel beams from WTC7 for an actual physical inspection rather than ask them to theorize on the subject 5 years later?

And this doesn't strike you as odd?

If the NIST were really concerned about investigating whether or not there was a controlled demolition, they would have inspected every steel beam. However, the NIST is not interested in actually determining what really happened.

In fact, the NIST has gone one step further. The NIST has stated that no inspection of the WTC7 beams for explosives is necessary because even if they found traces of the explosives, these chemicals could have come from somewhere else.

Of course this is right in line with the NIST explanation for why they didn't even need to analyze WTC1 and WTC2 for a controlled demolition.

Their reason?

Because the collapses started at the impact floors, and because of how long it took for the collapse to initiate.

What does this have to do with whether or not there was a controlled demolition in WTC1 or WTC2?

Answer: nothing.

What does CDI's opinion of a controlled demolition in WTC7 have to do with whether an actual controlled demolition of some sort took place?

Answer: nothing.

Do these people really believe that their theories or opinions make reality?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Because the collapses started at the impact floors, and because of how long it took for the collapse to initiate.

What does this have to do with whether or not there was a controlled demolition in WTC1 or WTC2?


OF course the collapses started at the impact floors because that’s where the damage was. Why would they see if WTC 1+2 were a controlled demolition when there are thousands of video tapes showing the towers collapsing from top to bottom, begining at the impact floors? And FYI those 2 reasons are exactly why it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition because they collapsed at the impact points, and certain parts of the building fell faster than others. If it was a CD it would have all fallen at once.

Nevermind the fact that what you are implying is that the NIST would essentially have to tell this organization that they were purpousley trying to cover 9-11 up. That doesn’t seem crazy to you? To tell a bunch of average working people “look, um..we got a little problem here and we’re gonna need you to come up with some bull and get us out the fire. We can’t pay you to much money, because then people would be suspicious. So be good citizens and commit some willful, treason for us ok?”

It’s absurd. The more you look over the 9-11 forums the more it because clear that the Cters don’t want to accept real facts and real reality, they simply want to live in fantasy conspirocy land. It’s been proven time and time and time again that there’s no way it could have been a CD, especially for the 2 reasons that you so blatently reject.


Originally posted by nick7261
Do these people really believe that their theories or opinions make reality?


no but apparently you think your conspirocy theories make reality.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn

Originally posted by nick7261
Because the collapses started at the impact floors, and because of how long it took for the collapse to initiate.

What does this have to do with whether or not there was a controlled demolition in WTC1 or WTC2?


OF course the collapses started at the impact floors because that’s where the damage was. Why would they see if WTC 1+2 were a controlled demolition when there are thousands of video tapes showing the towers collapsing from top to bottom, begining at the impact floors? And FYI those 2 reasons are exactly why it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition because they collapsed at the impact points, and certain parts of the building fell faster than others. If it was a CD it would have all fallen at once.

Nevermind the fact that what you are implying is that the NIST would essentially have to tell this organization that they were purpousley trying to cover 9-11 up. That doesn’t seem crazy to you? To tell a bunch of average working people “look, um..we got a little problem here and we’re gonna need you to come up with some bull and get us out the fire. We can’t pay you to much money, because then people would be suspicious. So be good citizens and commit some willful, treason for us ok?”

It’s absurd. The more you look over the 9-11 forums the more it because clear that the Cters don’t want to accept real facts and real reality, they simply want to live in fantasy conspirocy land. It’s been proven time and time and time again that there’s no way it could have been a CD, especially for the 2 reasons that you so blatently reject.


Originally posted by nick7261
Do these people really believe that their theories or opinions make reality?


no but apparently you think your conspirocy theories make reality.


But wasn't it Controlled Demolition Inc. also an eyewitness to the molten steel in the basements of all the buildings that we have no explanation or evidence of how it happened.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But wasn't it Controlled Demolition Inc. also an eyewitness to the molten steel in the basements of all the buildings that we have no explanation or evidence of how it happened.


thats a good point, one even a skeptic like me has to agree with. its not like cdi can come along and say "oh that? that was just a typo"

be interesting to see if they even mention that in their findings



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   
and is was CDI (daddy Loizeaux) who told the world in a NG documentary (pre 911) that they can make a CD look exactly like they want too, with or without huge fireballs, with or without big booms. Remember these people have blown up quite a few buildings for the movie industry..
He also stated that as soon as he saw an airplane crash the wtc, he knew it would come down soon, contrary to the testimonies of a lot of other CD specialists.
Since they have been the prefered contractor for the governement long before 911, did they know something we didnt?

not accusing anyone, just asking questions.
mr.Jones



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn

Why would they see if WTC 1+2 were a controlled demolition when there are thousands of video tapes showing the towers collapsing from top to bottom, begining at the impact floors?


So, according to this ahem... logic... does this mean that WTC7 had to be a controlled demolition because the collapse started from the ground floors simulatneously across the entire length and width of the building?



And FYI those 2 reasons are exactly why it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition because they collapsed at the impact points, and certain parts of the building fell faster than others. If it was a CD it would have all fallen at once.


You mean like what happened at WTC7?

By the way, since you seem to understand the NIST reasoning, can you explain exactly why the fact that the collapse started at the impact floors is mutually exclusive from a CD? And also why the length of time before the collapse has anything to do with whether or not there was a CD?


Nevermind the fact that what you are implying is that the NIST would essentially have to tell this organization that they were purpousley trying to cover 9-11 up. That doesn’t seem crazy to you? To tell a bunch of average working people


CDI are not average working people. What makes you think they are?


“look, um..we got a little problem here and we’re gonna need you to come up with some bull and get us out the fire. We can’t pay you to much money, because then people would be suspicious. So be good citizens and commit some willful, treason for us ok?”


Ok, then going with your reasoning, please explain how the government planned to pull off Project Northwoods, which included faking that a commercial airliner was shot down? Doesn't the fact that the government even planned this type of operation imply that they government has reason to believe that they can get non-government entities to cooperate with them?



It’s absurd. The more you look over the 9-11 forums the more it because clear that the Cters don’t want to accept real facts and real reality, they simply want to live in fantasy conspirocy land.


What are the "real" facts re 9/11? 99% of the "facts" have been spoon fed to the public by the government through a willing media. What about the "fact" that I personally spoke with a woman who worked 2 blocks from WTC2 and who said she saw the 2nd plane turning around near the Statue of Liberty just moments before WTC2 was hit. Obviously, her eye-witness account doesn't match-up with the "official" story. Which is the correct "fact"?


It’s been proven time and time and time again that there’s no way it could have been a CD, especially for the 2 reasons that you so blatently reject.


Talk about fantasy land. Try reading the NIST reports. They didn't prove anything about CD. In fact, it's been 5 years, and now they're hiring CDI to investigate whether CD was involved in WTC7. If it had been proven time and time again, why hire CDI now?



no but apparently you think your conspirocy theories make reality.


No, as somebody who has two engineering degrees from a top 10 engineering school, I was trained to make conclusions based on facts and evidence. The investigation into 9/11 by the federal government is very short on facts and evidence, and very long on averments and opinions that have absolutely zero corroborating evidence from independent sources.

The government's official explanation of the events of 9/11 lacks supporting evidence. The fact that the evidence was readily obtainable and available and yet the government didn't look at the evidence shows either a) incompetence, or b) willful neglect.

Either way, it means that the government's explanations lack credibility.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
4 seperate commisions and now bringing in CDI and everyone is already attempting to discredit it. This is to show that it could not have been a demo. Stop looking at the WTC people and look into flight 93. This is where the conspiracy is. That is the cover up.

I personally will be anxious to see the results of the research. This is the first time that this has ever happened, so it is a precedent. Engineers of the new WTC 7 made sure that it was built so a fire could never bring it down. We will learn from the collapse to ensure the safety of future structures.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
4 seperate commisions and now bringing in CDI and everyone is already attempting to discredit it.


Why would there need to be four separate investigations/commissions into WTC7?

If the first investigation was done properly there wouldn't be a need for a 2nd investigation.

The reason people are trying to discredit the current NIST investigation is because their current "working" theories are ludicrous. Have you read their report?

Their current theory re WTC7, to paraphrase, is that a critial internal support column failed, causing a vertical collapse to initiate. This vertical collapse somehow instantly spread to cause a simultaneous, symmetrical, and complete horizontal failure of every horizontal support, and every vertical support.

I.e., the SW corner of WTC7 which was damaged by fire and debris fell at exactly the same time as the NE corner which was unaffected by either fire or debris.

By the way, why is the Commerce Department investigating WTC7 anyway???



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I have read the report, and there is no need for for studies, but that is what has occured. 4 studies and NO proof of demolition. Now to cast off the conspiracy theroist NIST is bringing in a demo company to investigate it. This is what should happen, whether the outcome is it was or it wasn't. Hopefully this will be able to close the doors on some of the mystery.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I have read the report, and there is no need for foyr studies, but that is what has occured. 4 studies and NO proof of demolition. Now to cast off the conspiracy theroist NIST is bringing in a demo company to investigate it. This is what should happen, whether the outcome is it was or it wasn't. Hopefully this will be able to close the doors on some of the mystery.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I have read the report, and there is no need for for studies, but that is what has occured. 4 studies and NO proof of demolition. Now to cast off the conspiracy theroist NIST is bringing in a demo company to investigate it. This is what should happen, whether the outcome is it was or it wasn't. Hopefully this will be able to close the doors on some of the mystery.


Saying there is no proof of demolition is blatantly disengenuous considering the evidence that could be used to prove, or disprove demolition was taken away and destroyed before it could be thoroughly examined.

And guess who took this evidence away?

Controlled Demolition, Inc., the same subcontractor the NIST has hired to comment on whether there was a controlled demolition at WTC7.

Now what would be useful is if CDI would write up a report based on the physical evidence, not some theory about CD. My guess is that's not going to happen because NIST already said that the physical evidence doesn't matter.

Also, it's interesting that you state the CDI is being brought in to prove that there was no CD. That's exactly the problem with this entire "investigation." Rather than search for the facts, then draw a conclusion, the NIST is working at this backwards. They've concluded that there was no demo, and they've been searching for facts and experts to back this conclusion.


And why exactly do you believe there was no CD at WTC7?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Will CDI also "TRY" and answer why so many knew it was going to collapse?




WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)

4) Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running." (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

5) EMT Joseph Fortis: "When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe." (Interview, 11/9/2001)

6) Fire Chief Thomas McCarthy: "So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down. ... I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don't stand under there, it's going to come down. ... So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

7) Firefighter Matthew Long: "And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. ... Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down." (Interview, 10/9/2001)

8) Firefighter Edward Kennedy: "That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. ... I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

9) Paramedic Louis Cook: "We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, 'There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker.' We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse. ... We hear over the fire portable, 'Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse.' Mark Steffens starts yelling, 'Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse.' ... We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake." (Interview, 10/17/2001)

10) Battalion Fire Chief John Norman: "After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." (John Norman, "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering, 10/2002)

John Norman (in another account): "Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 5/2002)




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I have read the report, and there is no need for foyr studies, but that is what has occured. 4 studies and NO proof of demolition. Now to cast off the conspiracy theroist NIST is bringing in a demo company to investigate it. This is what should happen, whether the outcome is it was or it wasn't. Hopefully this will be able to close the doors on some of the mystery.


The problem i have with NIST is they have refused on many occasions to accept an inventation to an open debate to answer questions. If they believe thier reports and work why would not want to prove it in an open forum ?

Also the NIST report itself states that in thier model they removed more collums then it should have taken for the building to collapse.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
NIST is just another agency that is complicit in agreeing with the governments absurd theories. They probably got paid off with some of Silverstein's billions that he got on that last minute insurance policy for both of the towers. They will never be able to prove their report because it is based on sheer BS



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
To me its like the people who believe in the OFFICIAL STORY OF 9/11 ONLY WANT people to investigate things that *BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY*, as in this case CDI.

What about getting another investigative team to investigate this? With Steve Jones onboard?

Or would the OFFICAL STORY believers then say ''Jones is biased".

I say it cuts both ways. CDI is biased, and should be excluded from any investigation.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

I say it cuts both ways. CDI is biased, and should be excluded from any investigation.


Actually, CDI, as the subcontractor who cleared out the debris, might actually have a legal conflict of interest.

Suppose CDI mistakenly destroyed evidence that could be used to show a CD. Then how could CDI be called upon to comment on whether or not there was a CD?




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join