Transcript: February NIST Public Meeting on WTC Collapse

[Bolo Boffin]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pdf

I know you're all as excited about it as I.

For some reason, the file keeps crashing my Preview program. So no snappy quotations from me. Won't another of you step into the gap?

[Old and In the Way]

1. Check out page 32...Nico Haupt (Ewing 2000) is asking questions.

I see they got his name wrong...

[Bolo Boffin]

4. They had a lot of trouble understanding him

Lots of "inaudible" notations in his remarks.

[LARED]

5. If the transcript is even remotely

accurate the panelists must have been looking at Ewing 2000 rather strangely. He sounded rather er..confused.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Correct me if I'm wrong...

...but I believe Nico's first language isn't English. That could account for a lot of the confusion.

However, they got the general thrust of what he was saying. They certainly understand that the controlled demolition hypothesis is out there, and has enough currency to motivate Nico to secure the first spot in line to ask a question at this public meeting. I expect that the final report will have something to say concerning demolition, even if it's just a notation that there's absolutely no evidence of demolition materials.

[Abe Linkman]

7. One thing we can agree on.

"I expect that the final report will have something to say concerning demolition, even if it's just a notation that there's absolutely no evidence of demolition materials."

Either that, or the modified version: "The evidence of a controlled demolition is insufficient to support the charge (no pun)."

They'd be crazy to not say SOMETHING.

[HarryLime]

8. everything you say is inaudible

"accurate the panelists must have been looking at Ewing 2000 rather strangely. He sounded rather er..confused. "

I hear: "accurate (inaudible)...Edwin 2005...(inaudible)...confused."

That's a pretty nice trick they put on. Pretend not to hear anything Nico says.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. What IS Nico trying to say?

Nico Houts (ph): Hello, my name is Nico Houts. I’m with (inaudible). com, the (inaudible) World Report. Also other (inaudible) related research and (inaudible) projects like NY911.org or (inaudible).org.

My question’s referring –

Dr. Hill: For Dr. Sunder?

N. Houts: No, it’s the Q&A. Yeah – addressed to the NIST. I would like to show a picture.

Dr. Hill: Now is this a question or a presentation?

N. Houts: Yeah, my question is that I would like to find out why the NIST is not looking into the collapse of WTC 7 compared with the other creation details. Because building 7 was the only building, when it looked like this in the morning, less than this, which was ever created immediately. We know it was a military and CIA-connected building. We would like to have a very simple explanation, in 5 seconds from the NIST, why this building collapsed at 5:25 p.m. while it was not hit by any plane or destroyed by any kerosene inside.

Dr. Hill: So the question is –

N. Houts: And there’s three radios around which we can see on the internet, so this is clearly, there’s clearly public records available that this building collapsed within 7.8 seconds in its own footprint. Here’s the picture. I would like to have a simple explanation, of why (A) the major background of this building, including Black Stone, TOW, is not available, what they did in this building. (B) A simple explanation why this building collapsed within 7.8 seconds in its own footprints, and on the north side it’s burned only in two floors. I’m not talking about the south side, but the north side.

Dr. Hill: Shyam, do you understand the question?

Dr. Sunder: I think I understand part of it.

Dr. Hill: Go ahead.

Dr. Sunder: I’ll try to, I’m not sure I’ll get it done in five seconds. But we do have information on the plans and design and structural system for WTC 7. We also have detailed information on the fuel tanks in the buildings. These buildings, because they contained various functions, at the bottom of the building was a Con-Ed substation, and there was emergency fuel tanks in the buildings to supply for various offices that were in the higher, upper floors. There was a trading office, and the trading office needed continuous power, as did emergency operations for the City of New York. And there were oil tanks, fuel tanks that were in the basement level, as well as the different levels in the building.

N. Houts: Wouldn’t we call floors?

Dr. Sunder: Excuse me?

N. Houts: Wouldn't we call floors, (inaudible) the 8th floor? (inaudible)

Dr. Sunder: Yes.

N. Houts: But it was not the reason for the collapse. (inaudible) I would like to find out from NIST and from the 9/11 Commission (inaudible) are not discussed in public.

Dr. Sunder: They will be.

N. Houts: (inaudible) evacuated immediately.

Dr. Sunder: Thank you very much. We will fully report. We have begun reporting, and we will fully report on the fires in WTC 7, the causes of the collapse in WTC 7, as well as any other evidence from first-person accounts about 7. We do know, for example, that at some point in the morning, they’d given up fighting the fires in the building. And that was one thing we do know for sure. And at some point, another time in the day, maybe the power was shut off, as well. So, these are things that you will see.

N. Houts: 9:59.

Dr. Sunder: Excuse me?

N. Houts: Power was shut off at 9:59.

Dr. Sunder: Right. So these are things that are in our reports, will be in our reports, and will be an integral part of our investigation. So stay tuned, we will get more information as time goes on.

I have to admit I'm flummoxed by the "creation" talk, as well as the three radios line. Does he mean videos instead of radios? I can't come up with a way to understand the creation line.

Why does Nico think the "major background" of "what they did in this building" is unavailable? Isn't there a list of tenants somewhere on the web, which can be Googled to find out what they did?

Nico says that only two floors on the north side were on fire. Sunder reminds him that at some time in the morning the fire department stopped fighting the fire, implying that the fire was allowed to spread where it would.

It seems to me they spent at least five minutes trying to understand and answer Nico's questions. Nico's concerned about the lack of kerosene, but they point out the fuel tanks in various parts of the building. They also addressed the main concern behind Nico's questions - that they will be reporting in full on their findings.

If anyone can discover what Nico was trying to say, would they post it here? Thanks.

[Abe Linkman]

10. Nico asked a very simple question. Just like others have asked of you.

Nico very clearly asked the simple question of why WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. A simple question surrounded by some confusing phrases.

That's just one of the many questions and points that Nico raised, Abe.

And the commissioners gave assurance that this would all be in the report, and everything would be released.

[LARED]

12. Who's they?

Are you trying to imply that Nico's question sounded clear and concise but "they" altered the transcript to cover up his penetrating line of questioning?

[HarryLime]

13. That's right

"Are you trying to imply that Nico's question sounded clear and concise but 'they' altered the transcript to cover up his penetrating line of questioning?"

Are you (inaudible)...to imply that Nico's question (inaudible)... but "they" (inaudible)...to cover up...(inaudible)...

[DeadBroke]

14. I'm not buying ...

... the concept that there was an intentional alteration of any kind.

As a person who has witnessed and participated in numerous public hearings I have always been frustrated by; a) the inability to clearly hear what speakers are saying, and b) to understand exactly what it is they're trying to say.

A) This is a broadbrush statement, but every public hearing has noise, multiple sound and conversational distractions; and people who participate are almost always unaccustomed to public speaking, seldom projecting their voice, speaking into the microphones improperly, or look away at notes and supporters - now sprinkle in accents and nervousness. It's anything but easy to clearly hear these speakers. I am surprised the reporters can even make transcipts of some of these speakers.

B) For the most part speakers get up, wait on line, say what's on their minds or ask their questions, and then sit down; but there's always a few speakers that will make everyone scratch their heads. These speakers lack communication skills. They're about as clear as mud. I've gone to dozens of public Q & A on 9-11 and have seen and heard dozens of people stand and talk and ask questions that no one in the room could understand. That's no exaggeration.

Transcripts are prepared by reporters trained to write the spoken word; but human error and honest mistakes will often appear. One example would be from my firefighting experiences. A few years back I commanded a lunch hour fire at an auto dealership. There was multimillion dollar losses and litigations are still pending. A transcript was typed from the tape recordings made of all the radio messages during the fire. Reading the transcripts while listening to the tapes I find numerous errors. One firefighter for example says "halligan" but the reporter typed "halogen" instead. Another example; a comment I heard and clearly understood over the radio during the fire and later on tape the reporter typed as "inaudible."

The situations and factors I have very briefly described are, I believe, very common and can be found in nearly every transcript. That's what's happening during Nico's few moments of fame. There are similar situations are in other parts of these transcripts as well. I don't believe that there was any intentional alterations to Nico's incoherency.

[Abe Linkman]

15. In other words, they DID know what Nico was trying to ask.

Nico shouldn't have been asking anything. He was obviously in over his head in that situation. He should have known the Commissioners would be hostile to him and he should have had someone else who is more experienced at dealing with highly skilled politicians asking the question.

That said, I'm certain they heard his question. They simply used his ineptness as an excuse to pretend like they didn't know what he was trying to ask.

And THAT said, a real pro would have thanked him for the question, assured him that it's a good one, and then they would have told him that the Commission will look into his concern and because of the importance of that particular question, make sure that it is addressed in their fnal report.

[DeadBroke]

16. Transcripts are just words ...

.... lacking the emotions, gestures and passions of a speaker. Read the speeches of Martin Luther King. Reading them sure is different from hearing his words with his passionate delivery. I don't buy into the concept that "the Commissioners would be hostile" to Nico, and I certainly can't find any hostility in their exchanges with Nico - or with any other speaker in the transcripts. From attending the number of public hearings that I have been to over the years these Commissioners IMHO gave too much leeway and too much time to too many speakers.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Isn't it interesting?

Two really great topics to discuss below, and all Abe wants to do is talk about how badly the commissions treated Nico Haupt.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. WTC 7: Major Structural Damage

Building damage. This goes back specifically to World Trade Center 7, especially on the south face, because we did not yet have a comprehensive understanding of what ignited the fires in that building and caused it later to collapse. And we have not had much success with photographs of the south face because it was a face A: Where not too many photographers were present and B: There was a thick smoke in front of the buildings that made it very hard for any photographs to penetrate the smoke.

However, there have been at least multiple people that we have talked to from the fire department, first responder community, that have observed what happened on the south face of WTC 7. And they report there was a large gouge on the south face of World Trade Center 7 extending from the sub cellar to the 10th floor, approximately, and covered roughly a third of the face, wide, and about 15% to 20% of the building deep. So that was a major, physical damage to the building. We are now understanding what the implications – trying to understand what the implication of that was on weakening the structure and the fire ignition and spread in that building.

So as you can see, we've received some very valuable information from the first person data collection. And there’ll be a lot more coming. This – we’re just beginning to analyze the information.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. "No Knowledge of Detonating Materials In The Building"

Diane Dreyfus: Hi. Diane Dreyfus, 9-1-1 Health Alert. I have one question and one comment. My question is, we’ve heard that it was common practice in the '70s to put detonating material throughout the floors of a high-rise so that in the event it needed to be demolished in a very dense area, they could come straight down. We’ve heard that that’s what’s in the World Trade Center. Nobody said it here. Could you just for the sake of the record say, were there any detonating charges in the World Trade Center, to your knowledge?

Dr. Sunder: At this point, to the best of my knowledge, I have no knowledge about any detonating materials in the building.

D. Dreyfus: But you do know that that was something that was done at the time, right, that that was a style of building?

Dr. Sunder: I’m not aware of that. Maybe – are any of my colleagues, aware of anything of that? No. I would say that there are well-established companies that do controlled demolition of buildings, and they go in when a building has to be demolished. And you’ve seen pictures on TV and so forth, but I haven’t heard of this.

[BassettWilliams]

18. William Rodriquez page 71

This WTC maintenance employee, a staircase cleaner, and a 911 survivor describes fireballs in elevator shafts, non-working fire sprinklers, structural damage and cracking stairwells, structural damage to the 13th and 21st floors, falling sheetrock, and what I think is very important, swaying.

Mr. Rodriquez, who was employed at WTC for 20 years states the building was swaying. This is important because swaying rules out the 'static condition' of WTC that has been advanced in these 911 forums. The swaying, along with the structural damage to lower floors, also confirms the collapse theories that suggest motion and dampening motion were key factors for the collapse.