911blogger mods help Kawika Alter Reality

 Something strange is happening at 911blogger.  Or something stranger.  Or something that's been going on for awhile but has gone unnoticed because people are blinded by the "truth".  That include persons who criticize the "truth" movement, as well as those who consider it their personal religion.

Make no mistake:  9/11 "Truth" is a fraud.  But the flaw many make in trying to expose the fraud is focusing on wacked out and unsubstantiated theories.  This is helpful as a flag something is amiss(Bentham vanity press, Steven Jones "overunity"scam), but it doesn't show how fraud works.  Or prove the persons pushing this wacked out garbage know they are pushing wacked out garbage. 

But when the webmaster/mods/siteowners collude to deceive readership--while soliciting donations from readership--then you know the people involved are pushing a con.

Recently, in one of the ongoing attempts to keep up the front of a legitimate activist activity, an article was published on September 24th by 911blogger user kawika titled:
60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

For almost two months no one said a thing except simple truths, who commented on the 26th.  Here is the Google cache of the thread, followed by a screencapture:
.......................................
This is Google's cache of http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Oct 31, 2013 20:36:33 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

Text-only version

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

Posted by kawika on Tue, 09/24/2013 - 11:05pm

It has been 60 days since I asked NIST about the numerous discrepancies between Frankel Fabrication Shop Drawing #9114 and certain figures found in their WTC7 report NCSTAR 1-9.
Frankel Drawing #9114 clearly shows stiffener plates welded onto the end of the girder that NIST claims walked off its C79 seated connection on floor 13, leading to an unprecedented global progressive collapse.
Please contact NIST Director Patrick Gallagher and Public Affairs Officer Michael Newman at the following email addresses and ask for a prompt reply to these pertinent questions.
michael.newman@nist.gov
patrick.gallagher@nist.gov
You may phone them at:
Patrick Gallagher-- 301-975-2300 (Director )
Michael Newman-- 301-975-3025 (Public Affairs)
********************************************************
To: michael.newman@nist.gov; patrick.gallagher@nist.gov
Subject: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:31:55 -0400
Dear Mr. Newman and Mr. Gallagher,
It has been 60 days since I sent my inquiry regarding the figures in NCSTAR 1-9.
I copy the original emails below for you convenience.
When may I expect a reply?
Thank you very much,
David Cole
________________________________________
To: michael.newman@nist.gov; patrick.gallagher@nist.gov
Subject: WTC7 Report Discrepancies
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:48:48 -0400
Dear Mr. Newman,
On March 16, 2012 I wrote your office with an inquiry about certain errors in the NCSTAR 1-9 report. Your reply follows:
From: michael.newman@nist.gov
To:
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:49:50 -0400
Subject: Your Inquiry on NIST NCSTAR 1-9
Dear Mr. Cole,
Joseph Main forwarded your e-mail of March 16 to me for handling. Our researchers looked into the issue you raised and found that there is indeed an error in the drawing number cited for Figure 8-16 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7. The drawing used in Figure 8-16 was “Structural Drawing S8” rather than “Erection Drawing E12/13”. Figure 8-16 is used to locate features of the floor framing, and either drawing would serve this purpose. The differences between the two drawings are minor, involving some notes that appear in one drawing but not the other. The information of interest is the same in both drawings, and the error in the drawing number referenced does not affect any observations, findings or conclusions in the NCSTAR 1-9 report.
NIST will include an erratum to the report to indicate this correction.
Thank you for catching this error.
Sincerely,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs
********************************************************************* Given that as a result of my inquiry, NIST issued an Erratum (April 2012) concerning Figure 8-16, making reference to a specific drawing (structural drawing, Cantor S-8), and given the fact that a similar Erratum (June 2012) addressed the seat width and walk off distances for the 13th floor, column 79 girder connection, also made reference to a specific drawing (Frankel #1091), I now have a number of pertinent questions regarding other Figures in NCSTAR 1-9.
Technical Questions:
In NCSTAR 1-9, which design drawing was used to create
• Figure 8-21?
• Figure 8-23?
• Figure 8-26?
• Figure 8-27?
• Figure 11-16?
• Figure 11-19?
• Figure 12-24?
• Figure 12-25?
Given that Frankel drawing #9114 shows 3/4" web/flange stiffeners installed on the girder at the 13th floor column 79 connection, why weren't the stiffeners reported in NCSTAR 1-9 and shown in the figures listed above?
Was Frankel Drawing #9114 used? If not, why not?
Thank you very much,
David Cole

• Login to post comments

Screen:

But someone grew unhappy about the lack of traffic.  Whether it was Kawika himself or the site owners, we know for certain the site owners retconned the thread in November, because only the sit owners could change the dates of articles, comments and content.  Now the article opens with a new date and time:

60 days--NIST Refuses To Reply

Posted by kawika on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 12:54am

It has been 60 days since I asked NIST about the numerous discrepancies between Frankel

At least Nov 12 was also a Tuesday.  But otherwise it is rife with anomalies like retaining a url with the original date:  

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-25/60-days-nist-refuses-reply

Truncating Simple Truth's comment from

 "well done

... will watch this with interest.
In the meantime, here's another building that's reportedly had explosives hit one or two critical columns - but no global implosion, only partial collapse. officials trying to put this damage down to 'burning mattresses'.
"Kenya's Westgate Mall - Gaping Chasm as Three Stories Blown Out"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432943/Kenya-Westgate-mall-atta...
Strangely enough, this Westgate shopping centre is owned by Silverstein's partner who bought Building 7 with him - Frank Lowy of Westfield Co.

Simple Truths on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 10:13am.

"

to :

thanks

... will watch this with interest.

Simple Truths on Tue, 11/12/2013 - 6:55am.

And all new comments oddly are dated Nov 9th, like this one:

Can you post or publish a link to some kind of visual that makes the point about the "web/flange stiffeners" in a more graphic form? I've spent about an hour looking at the report and looking at the diagram 9114 and I can't identify any structure that would restrain the girder from moving.
Woody

woodbourne on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 1:28pm.

 Making one suspect that Novemeber 9th was the real date of the retcon, 12th being chosen to retain Tuesday?  Hard to tell.

Read the archive of new thread(up to Nov 12th anyway) here: http://911bloggerfraud.blogspot.com/2013/11/text-of-badly-faked-retcon-of.html


The question remains:  why does Ted Tilton and(presumably) Justin Keogh want 911blogger readers and donors to believe Kawika's article was published in November instead of September?