"
'Building What?!' is a phone and fax campaign to help the New York City Council become aware of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7."
I have been using a free service called Fax Zero:
"Dear John-Michael Talboo, Your 3-page fax to Daniel Dromm at 7188039832 has been sent successfully. (Page count does not include the cover page.)
Thank you
FaxZero.com "
Here is my letter:
Dear Council Member Dromm,
I know that you have recently been flooded with requests to look into the collapse of WTC 7 and probably think this issue has been debunked/resolved. I implore you to read further, as I have objectively looked at both sides and can assure you it has not been.
In
NIST's 2008
final report on WTC 7 they admitted that the diesel fuel on the premises "
played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse," and that the building fell "
almost uniformly as a single unit." These are all points that truthers have been making for years, and that "debunkers" vehemently refuted.
But most importantly they admitted that the building experienced a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." Previous to this admission in their final Nov '08 report, their Aug '08 draft report attempted to demonstrate that
"there was no freefall."When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by high school physics teacher David Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives.
I submit to you this is why NIST failed to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.
The fact that
WTC 7's facade plunged at a nearly fee-fall rate is also something that we 9/11 truthers have been right about for years, perhaps we are also right about its implications.
It's either that, or
as NIST says, fires
"similar" to those "experienced in other tall buildings," caused "
the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." Again, we truth seekers have often been criticised for saying that
fires have never caused skyscrapers to collapse, but the NIST report vindicates us.
Other hard evidence in regard to Building 7 centers around the unexplained phenomenon documented in
Appendic C of FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study, which found
"intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." Appendix C states:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
NIST never even attempted to explain the melting of this steel or the source of the sulfur,
however independent scientists did. What they found was that
iron-rich spheres discovered in the WTC dust
contained the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate;
thermite with sulfur added to lower the steel's melting point.
Critics of their findings have argued that a thermate chemical signature would contain barium nitrate, however this is only true if the form
thermate-TH-3 was used. This should have been clear since the scientists were comparing the chemical signature of the spheres to a known sample of thermate which did not contain barium nitrate. All that being said, thermate TH-3 may have been in use as
WTC dust samples have shown high traces of barium.
In fact the iron-rich spheres are themselves hard evidence of the use of thermate which produces such spheres as a by-product. Thermate also produces molten iron as a by-product, and lo and behold molten metal was found under WTC 7 as well as the Towers, and seen flowing from the South Tower's crash zone. NIST tried to deny the existence of the molten metal underneath the buildings and explain away the flowing metal in the South Tower as molten aluminum. Here a video I made demonstrating that these claims are beyond dubious...
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/11/undebunkable-molten-metal.htmlCombine these evidences with
audio of explosions, reports of explosions both from people
inside and
outside of the building,
reports of plans to "take down" the building, and close examination of
WTC 7 collapse warnings in the FDNY oral histories and
in the press, and I think the case for explosive demolition is very strong.
But the bottom line is that NIST didn't test the steel for explosives or thermite residues. Their
excuses for failing to do so included saying that thermite could not have been coupled to the beams sufficiently to inflict the intended damage, however this ignores methods such as
shaped charges,
sol-gels, and
linear thermite cutting devices.
They also stated that:
"The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."
But just because the chemical elements are there does not mean they would be there in the correct proportions.
As mechanical engineer Gordon Ross stated:
If I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble.
Furthermore, physicist
Steven Jones has
pointed out:
"Wallboard has calcium and sulfur and they're very tightly bound with oxygen as well as calcium sulfate."
Now chemical signatures are one thing, but unignited explosive residues is quite another, and
that is exactly what a team of scientists report to have found in WTC dust in April of this year. Specifically, they claim to have found a
nano-engineered variant of thermite, that when heated
exerted an energy/volume yield exceeding that of explosives commonly used in demolitions.
There has been debate as to how energetic this material was, and exactly how it would have been used for a building demolition,
but during these discussions no argument was presented that the material was anything but nanothermite.
Their findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and have yet to be refuted in any similar fashion. Attacks upon the journal they published in, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org,
are unfounded. This is especially true considering that the NIST reports
have not been independently peer-reviewed. Attacks upon the
provenance of the samples are
also unfounded.
So not only did the official investigators fail to do the proper forensic tests, but they also failed to independently verify the non-forensic tests that they did do.
Please take action on these matters.
Sincerely yours,
John-Michael P. Talboo
Related Info:
New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"BUILDING WHAT?! Day 4 (and Important Updates!)BUILDING WHAT?! Day 3 (and Day 2 Recap)BUILDING WHAT?! Day 2 (and Day 1 Recap) Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.Building What? is up...
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was nice enough to help promote the "BuildingWhat?"campaign recently by posting their ad.
