Quote:
geoschmo said:
Truthfully I didn't pay much attention to this thread after my post so I just noticed yoru reply. What's outrageous is this New York Magazine article you link too came out a full year after the Popular Mechanics Aritcle, but they are giving quotes from Dr. Saunders from early in the investigation before all the facts were in.
|
Dr. Sunder made those comments on Jan. 18 2006, well after the lame Popular Mechanics attempt to explain the collapse of WTC7 appeared. [see footnote 6 from
this article.]
The "working hypothesis" which the NIST had in early 2006 apparently was so inadequate that a few months later the NIST commissioned an "Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios" and the "Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance."
The reliability of the photograph that Popular Mechanics claims shows "about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out" apparently is being seriously questioned because according to NIST there was a "lack of information about impact damage to the south face of WTC 7" and the "new images" which the NIST obtained in 8/06 did not rule out the need to investigate the possibility that the building was imploded. [
pages 7 & 8 of this report]
More importantly, Popular Mechanics has admitted that the photograph which they use as the basis for their conclusion about the damage to WTC7 is being deliberately witheld from viewing by the general public. This admission was made by Popular Mechanics "researcher" David Coburn when he was interviewed by Arizona talk show host Charles Goyette. Here's the pertinent part of that interview:
CG: �Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics�say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed� there was damage to Building 7�. What we found out was�about 25% of the building�s south face had been carved away from it� Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower�
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true� I go, oh that�s interesting�if that�s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you�ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn�t show that. So I�m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don�t show me the picture.
PM: �We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate�.
CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can�t see them.
PM: Correct.
CG: Well, that�s a fine kettle of fish, isn�t it? �.What did you see there that I can�t see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something that�s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You�re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they�ve done the worst possible thing, they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn�t know we had different classes of citizens. You can�t tell me it�s because it�s a criminal case because they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: �.I can�t answer that question.
CG: I know you can�t.
The entire interview can be heard here:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/4527367b2b25/
Re: GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!
Linear Mode
