latest false flag attack?

[John Young]

Much of NIST findings have not been made 
available to the public. Some building 
professionals have been given limited access 
under NDA. Terrorism continues to be the 
rationale for withholding, no matter the 
sustained growth among conspiracists about WTC and other calamities.

WTC7 had emergency generator fuel tanks on upper 
floors which contributed to the fire (revised 
codes now prohibit that, so it is claimed, 
however, special agencies (ie, spies) can get 
what they want). NIST is ruled by the needs of 
special agencies, as with all official agencies, 
including what information is released to the 
public (considered indistinguishable from terrorists).

WTC7's fuel tanks were not designed to withstand 
exceptional forces, say, as bladders, so fractured.

Supertalls have introduced a slew of risky 
practices, most never tested in the field over 
long duration, only surmised in codes and 
experiments, and above all, coutured as safe by public relations.

Any building over 75 feet tall (reach of 
firefighter ladders) is exceptionally dangerous. 
Professionals, officals and the real estate 
industry have long used elaborate justifications 
and finely-crafted codes to camouflage the 
danger, aided and abetted by the insurance industry.

Fortuitously, those responsibile for the 
potential calamities favor highest floors for 
offices and homes, biggest and hardest to reach 
McMansion spreads, all dense with flammables, 
seemingly secure as vaults which turn out to be inescapable crematoria.

Photos of WTC leapers, barbecues, body parts and 
ground beef are some of the NIST withholdings.





At 08:59 AM 9/24/2018, you wrote:
>from the NIST report on WTC7, downloaded 
>directly from NIST's own website, at 
><https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610>https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 
>
>
>On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:41 AM Peter 
>Fairbrother <<mailto:peter at tsto.co.uk>peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Begins: "Never before or after 9/11 have steel framed buildings
>collapsed due to fire".
>
>
>NIST report page xxxv: "This was the first known 
>instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."
>
>in certain ways, having re-read a lot of this 
>for the first time in years, I'm inclined to 
>side with the official explanation more than I 
>used to be. but if one is going to do that, it 
>is dirty pool to argue against what the report 
>itself says in plain English at the same time. 
>NIST engineers did/do consider what happened at WTC7 to be unusual.Â
>
>& again, a lot appears to be riding on the word "total."
>
>NIST report, also page xxxv, also contradicting 
>a fair amount of what some here have said:
>
>"Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of 
>gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor 
>were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the 
>fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have 
>occurred in several tall buildings where the 
>automatic sprinklers did not function or were 
>not present. These other buildings did not 
>collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires."Â
>
>if you want me to accept the NIST report, you 
>can't ask us to accept facts/reasoning based on 
>one person's reasoning, when the NIST report 
>itself explicitly does not accept those facts or reasoning.
>
>- z