911 Audio and video
See other 911 Audio and video Articles
Title: 911 Busted: Lead NIST Engineer caught lying about Molten Metal
Source:
Investigate and Expose 9/11
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
Published: Mar 3, 2009
Author: Investigate and Expose 9/11
Post Date: 2015-01-23 13:40:06 by Operation 40
Keywords: 911, NIST, Liars
Views: 24464
Comments: 40
9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying John Gross, NIST= Liar
John Gross- Lead NIST Engineer WTC Collapse Investigation
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Operation 40, Gatlin (#0)
How many lies about the events of 9/11 propagated by the government is that now? I've lost count. Even the official 9/11 commission report was debunked by the members as a "pack of lies". Yet, the Fairy Tale Cultists (those who believe the government/MSM narrative) still won't accept the facts.
Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
It’s happened to all of us. Some friend we had in elementary school or from an old job is all of a sudden making super weird comments on Facebook, or you’re in a bar and some random is trying to talk to you about fluoride for some reason. It’s not always immediately clear. Like, I realized one day that people saying crazy things were always following it up with “Do your own research!” and then finally discovered that it was sort of a “buzzphrase” for conspiracy theorists. So, I thought I’d compile a list of the ways to know that someone in your life is starting to head down to tin foil hat alley. This is one of the earliest signs of this type of crazy- and it’s also a major Glenn Beck-ism. I don’t know about you, but when I state a fact, I’m usually able to explain that fact. Especially if it’s something that may be controversial. For instance, I do not so much believe that Joan Crawford beat her children. This is a thing that most people believe, because of the movie “Mommie Dearest”– however, when asked to explain, I don’t yell “Do your own research!” at people, I explain that all of the other children (save for Christopher) have refuted Christina’s book, as well as Crawford’s actual personal assistant, and Myrna Loy, and pretty much anyone else who was around during that time. I’m not saying I’m 100% definitely correct on this, but I err on the side of “probably not.” Still, I don’t throw out something weird, get mad at people for not immediately taking me at my word, and then yell at them to do their own research. I mean, if they want to, that’s fine, but I’m usually quite able to support my arguments. 2. Freaking Flouride UGH. These people and their fluoride. They love to make up crap about how the government puts fluoride in the water to keep us dumb and rebellion-resistant, like no one has ever seen “Dr. Strangelove” before or something. This is usually what they start with, probably because it sounds slightly more realistic than like, Lizard People. It is not, however, true. At all. And yes, I’ve “done my research.” But don’t tell that to these people, especially if they are drunk at a bar, because they will, in fact, start screaming at you about it. Fluoride and the “vaccinations cause autism” thing are like the gateway drugs into tin-foil hat land. 3. Rejecting the tyranny of paragraph breaks I swear to god, this is a thing. Whenever I see a comment that’s just a giant block of text with no breaks in it, I immediately just go “Welp, this one’s gonna be crazy” and I am pretty much always right. I don’t know why this is a thing, it just is. 4. When a person who you already kinda know isn’t too swift starts trying to pretend that they are some kind of intellectual who is totally going to school you on “how things are in the world.” I hate to say this, but it’s true. It’s always the dumb ones. I feel bad, because like, they’re usually just coming across this stuff for the first time and it is totally blowing their minds. Like, I already know that some people think that the Rothschilds control the world and that there are Mason things on the dollar bill and also THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED or whatever. I’ve known for years, and I’ve already figured out that it’s all bullshit. The more you read about history, the more you realize that people are so not getting it together to form a whole “New World Order” anytime soon. While there have been “conspiracy” type things throughout history (MKUltra, Tuskeegee, Project Paperclip, the COINTELPRO that actually existed and not the one people pretend still exists), they have been discovered fairly quickly. Because someone always has a big mouth. 5. They use the term term Big Pharma (or Big Anything) in all seriousness There are about a 1000 problems with the pharmaceutical industry, for sure. However, when your friend is talking about “Big Pharma” they are not usually talking so much about overpriced cancer medication as they are like, vaccines causing autism and things like that. Also, sane people, when discussing the problems with the pharmaceutical industry just do not say things like “Big Pharma” because they like being taken seriously. 6. “Wake up, Sheeple!” Being awake or being asleep is like, tin-foil hat code for being hep to all kinds of nonsense. Which is why on those weird personal ads for Infowars everyone was like “I’ve been awake for 4 months” and things. Sheeple is what they call people who do not go along with them. See, usually, these people are kind of “new.” Like, they think that the information they are about to rock you with is A) Nothing you have ever heard before or B) Something you are going to buy wholesale, immediately, because their “evidence” is so vastly compelling. If you do not believe them, you are obviously a sheep of a person. 7. You lose! Um, just some weird thing that they always seem to say when they think they’ve trumped your logic. Because they are very mature. 8. They say things about ZOG or “Zionist Occupied Government” or “The Rothschilds are controlling the world!” without understanding that that shit is pretty anti-Semitic I have actually had to explain, on several occasions that, yes, the term “ZOG” is an anti-Semitic “the Jews are controlling the government!” thing. And also like, a Randy Weaver/ Ruby Ridge thing. I imagine they just hear the term a bunch around the Infowars type sites and think is a real thing? I don’t know. Like I said, not the swiftest bunch of humans. At this point, however, it is probably best to start avoiding these people. Not much you can do to help. Next step after this is Lizard People, and I’m not sure there’s much hope after that. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/198326/8-clues-your-friend-is-becoming-a- crazy-conspiracy-theorist/
CTs and progs use the same playbook.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
They are so predictable.
Slam dunk!
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Sorry man, for pinging Gatlin. I should have known that the other Fairy Tale Cultists/disinformation trolls would show up as well
Unignited thermite was found in dust and debris from the demolition of the 3 towers. Thermite does not just occur in nature. It's man-made. I could make a better case for my theory of what happened that day than you could for that fairy tale the neo- cons are trying to foist upon the world.
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2 A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4 A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
I'm a former demolitionist, and I'm very familiar with thermite and thermate, and its limitations. You cannot cut a column with with either one. Yes, I know there's a video on YouTube how to cut a steel column with one or the other, but it ignores several problems. The main problem is that when you're trying to cut a column the thermite will create a small hole and then pour out before completing a cut.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I don't need to watch that clip to know it's drivel, Palmjob. There are enough holes in your story to keep the Pacific fleet satisfied for eternity.
BTW, thermite, thermate, or nano-thermite burns very quickly, and to suggest fires from it were burning a week later is insane.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Hi, lubey.
Nah, lubes is a douchebag. I'm a much more formidable foe than him.
:)
Ya gotta protect your ignorance.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it.
The Truthers claim the steel melted, but in reality what happened was it was just weakened. There simply wasn't enough heat there to melt steel beams or columns.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Balderdash! The towers fell straight down into their own footprints. If your scenario was correct, the building would have tipped over at the point of impact and Then collapsed. And the original article, the molten steel that was found in the rubble weeks afterward? Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Maybe you should stick to selling insurance "Gary".
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.” PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Uh, numerous firefighters and first responders heard explosions. Your "theory" is nothing but hot air.
ASSERTION #5 “An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used...a non- detonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.” PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim. This claim is actually a loose connection of unrelated individual assertions, therefore we must address them as such. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Hot air comes from those who don't have a clue regarding the nature of explosives.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Well, excuse me for not trusting some anonymous poster on an obscure chat site who "claims" to have demolition experience and also regurgitates the official government fairy tale concerning 9/11. It's likely that you are a disinformation operative.
You ignored the NIST engineer completely and instead spammed the thread with a bunch of authoritarian nonsense. Did you even bother to watch the video? Why am I not surprised at your "reaction"? Why did the NIST representative lie and condescend to the citizen asking questions? Do you think the NIST rep actually didn't know about the molten metal?
And how many other times in all of history has a fire caused a steel framed building to collapse? For example: At 8:27 p.m. on 9 February 2009, the entire building caught fire on the last day of the festivities marking the Chinese new year and was put out six hours later http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire There are countless examples just like the above. Yet there are NO examples of fire causing a steel framed building to collapse. Even NIST Says the exact same thing The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. 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, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). You HAVE read the official NIST reports, haven't you?
Firstly, WTC 1 & 2 sustained extensive damage from airplanes plowing through columns within the buildings. This was in addition to the fires. When the North Tower collapsed, heavy debris hit WTC 7, causing damage to the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41. So to say WTC 7 collapse due to fire alone ignores the facts.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
The laws of physics were suspended that day, which explains why commercial jets were able to fly 150 mph faster than than their maximum speed.
So you don't agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory™, which says that it was the fires alone. Interesting. If you'd at least take a few minutes to read the NIST FAQ (or take longer and read the full report) you would know that. Why won't people do the basics? The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings. The Official Conspiracy Theory™ says you're wrong about one of the fundamentals. Study up and try again? There's this too: The Offical NIST FAQ states that the structure fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity How does that happen, especially keeping in mind that the structural damage didn't cause the collapse - per the Official Conspiracy Theory™? How does a 47 story building collapse in 5.4 seconds due to heat causing a girder to "thermally expand"? Has it ever happened before? No? Isn't that interesting.
WTC 7, 1, and 2 did not collapse due to fires alone, but due to significant damage and fire.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Argument against molten metal being picked up by an excavator or grapple, or other hydraulic equipment. http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t12084.htm Complete article at: 2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11 By Jim Dwyer In rebuttal, Mr. Blanchard of Protec said that if there had been any molten steel in the rubble, it would have permanently damaged any excavation equipment encountering it. “As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, it would completely lose its ability to function,” Mr. Blanchard wrote. “At a minimum, the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up.” Dr. Judy Wood, at page 266 of her book, Where Did the Towers Go? agrees with the wording of Jim Dwyer that the photo image of construction equipment showed debris that "appeared to be red." She notes that "an optical camera, not a thermal imaging camera, captures the color, not the temperature of the objects in the photograph." At page 267, Dr. Wood observes that, "The molten steel story appears on the evidence to be exactly that—a story. Certainly, it is a very different thing from the abundant recorded and observable evidence of glowing metal. We saw the chart that shows the maximum temperatures at which hydraulic systems can be operated. That chart supports what NYT reporter Jim Dwyer said. ... The crucial facts, however, support Dwyer—namely, that high temperatures would have permanentl damaged if not destroyer hydraulic equipment. The facts are well-established and available in mechanical engineering handbooks as well as on the internet." http://www.macinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=772 Brendan Casey, Hydraulic Equipment Reliability Beyond Contamination Control, Machinery Lubrication, July 2005 [excerpt]
What was reported to have been found in the dust samples from lower was thermitic material. Dr. Judy Wood discusses the nature of thermitic material at page 124 of her book, Where Did the Towers Go? Thermitic material is what thermite is made of. She asks if finding chocolate, sugar and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust would prove the existence of chocolate chip cookies in the building. The buildings contained aluminum cladding and iron, the significant component of steel. Iron dust exposed to atmospheric conditions rapidly yields iron oxide, i.e., rust. Finding constituents of the building in the dust does not show that they were previously combined in some manner. Finding the constitutents of the building in the dust does provide proof that much of the building and what was in it were reduced to dust or powder. Any viable theory must explain what reduced the building and contents to powder. The report is "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, pp. 7-31, However, see how how the editor resigned after this article was published and how the Bentham scientific "scientific" and "peer reviewed" journal was discredited by publishing a computer generated nonsense article. See the Wiki article for general info and another phony article stiong. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/bentham-editors-resign.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/06/bentham-journals-get-punkd-again.html Below is from the Wiki entry for Bentham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers [...] Controversies and criticism Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review; however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen had been accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this. Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals. In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite". Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them". In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research." In 2013, The Open Bioactive Compounds Journal was one of the journals accepting an obviously bogus paper submitted as part of the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting. It has since been discontinued.
Argument against the officially abandoned "pancake theory" of collapse. http://the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=15852&Disp=138#C138 Wrong. They use synchronized explosive charges to take out the floors below. It cannot be done by gravity and the weight does not cause the fall. The falling floors are not meeting resistance because of the explosions. It is impossible in nature for the floors to give way all around the building simultaneously on all floors. Always, in nature, the fall will stop with the upper portion shunting off to the side. The pancake theory, which was one offered as an official explanation, was officially admitted as impossible. - - - From my archives: What became known as the "pancake theory" was hypothesized early on by Dr. Thomas Eagar. It has since been rejected. The symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed cannot be explained by the pancake theory. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. As we now learn from NIST, and as was pointed out by critics of the FEMA report which relied upon the above analysis, the progressive collapse pancake theory required all of the clips to fail simultaneously on each floor to account for the symmetrical collapse. As that was deemed impossible, NIST rendered a different theory radically different from the Eagar theory. In the NIST theory, the clips are required to NOT fail. As the current official theory by NIST prohibits the failure of the angle clips hypothesized by Dr. Eagar, his collapse theory has collapsed. NIST Fact Sheet, FAQ-2, page 2 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm As Dr. Wood points out: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html Let's consider the "Pancake Theory" According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse." Dr. Wood addresses the issue of conservation of momentum: So, if motion must be restarted at every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, if any. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each "pancake." After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors. Consider reality: QUESTIONS: nolu chan posted on 2009-12-12 1:21:17 ET
So, when it comes to WTC7 you don't believe the official conspiracy theory. Got it.
I have have often wondered how GWBuah read his book to the classroom during his visit to an elementary school: The world was turned up-side-down that fateful day?
I have fought this nonsense almost from the beginning, and it makes my blood boil that the people supporting the conspiracy theory don't realize that they are enabling Al Qaeda and similar groups. What they are doing is evil. You can believe what you want I'm finished trying to reason with brick walls.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
"I do not know of a plausible theory that explains all the observed phenomena." I did not know a plausible theory in 2009 and I do not know one today. I fail to see how that could make me either a "truther" (however that is defined) or an Al Qaeda enabler. Your complaint assumes that men with box cutters and were responsible for the destruction of 1 through 7 WTC. You assume that anyone who does not accept your favorite physically impossible conspiracy theory must accept some other theory you believe, or know, to be wrong. And you accuse anyone not accepting your favorite conspiracy theory of "enabling Al Qaeda and similar groups." Ruling out accident or natural causes, unless you believe that 9/11 was the result of a lone person, you must believe that it was the result of a conspiracy. Whether it be the official NIST conspiracy theory, your favorite pancake theory, or any "truther" conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy theory. As for what you refer to as "the conspiracy," I have no idea of which one of the many you refer to. The official government conspiracy theories have not fared well with those who require that a theory consider all observed physical phenonema and comply with all known laws of physics. I have declined to support any theory that violates the laws of physics and is impossible. The pancake theory has been proven impossible. That does not infer that any other theory has been shown to be correct. As stated, and quoted, the government was forced to abandon the pancake theory. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm The replacement government conspiracy theory, the NIST theory, if one can call it that, is incomplete and does not address mid-air pulverization. Before the conclusion of who did it, and how they did it, comes the investigation of the observed events and the physical evidence to determine, as best possible, what happened. The Congressional mandate to NIST was: NIST NCSTAR 1, p. xxxv (pdf page 37) Determining how the buildings "collapsed" is not what NIST did. (underline added) NIST NCSTAR 1, p. xxxvii (pdf page 39) The NIST WTC 1&2 report analysis goes to the point of initiation of collapse and assumes a gravity driven collapse in less than 10 seconds. The actual collapse sequence is a hypothetical. Through this artifice, it neatly sidesteps the need to explain the miracle step that suspended the laws of physics, or what was plainly observed as the buildings, and contents (minus one filing cabinet), were pulverized from the top to the bottom. When challenged, NIST admitted that they did not analyze the collapses themselves. (underline added) NIST ltr of 17 Jul 2007 to Dr. Judy Wood, page 1 "Collapse," as used by NIST means in any manner to be flattened or reduced to rubble. Under this descriptive term, blowing the building up one floor at a time, from top to bottom would be a collapse. Smashing it with Thor's hammer would be a collapse. Id. at 1-2. (underline added) How the buildings could come down in the time observed, less than 10 seconds, is not addressed by an investigation which only extends up to the point of collapse initiation. Never explained by the government or the "truther" movement is the observed phenomena of the pulverization of the building and contents in mid-air, nor how the lower building provided little more resistance than air. In a collapse where the falling floor is pulverized upon striking the lower floor, the lower floor must present a great deal of resistance. If the lower floor moves out of the way while offering little or no resistance, there can be no mid-air pulverization of the upper floor due to the collision. Energy cannot be transferred in excess of the amount of resistance. Any energy expended in pulverization of the falling upper floor is not available for downforce. Such expended energy must slow the rate of descent. If the downforce was enough to pulverize all that came down, it is hard to explain how the Warner Brothers store in the first subbasement survived intact, along with Foghorn Leghorn, Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner. What was magic about the ground floor? http://rolandopujol.tumblr.com/post/31215494887/photos-the-stories-behind-the-haunting-relics-of Explosives cutting columns does not explain pulverization. You are correct in rejecting thermite. As noted before, thermitic material was reportedly found. That was components of thermite, aluminum and iron oxide (rust). It would be surprising if aluminum and rust were not found as the building contained aluminum and steel. As for the samples from Manhattan, they were of undisclosed origin, thus lacking provenance, and were not made available for independent or government study. In any case, as you noted, thermite is not an explosive. It may be used in some industrial welding processes. A significant military application is for emergency destruction, e.g., for weapons or crypto equipment. It is an incendiary. Mini-nukes or thermobaric weapons in the basement have been thrown out there for consideration. They do not deserve much consideration. There is more than one reason, but the emergence of 14 survivors from Stairway B of 1WTC should be sufficient. The observed, but unexplained, phenomena are plentiful. The dust clouds at ground level caught up with fleeing people and did not burn anyone. Cars appear to be burning but are surrounded by paper which did not burn. Cars and heavy trucks are flipped over next to trees whose leaves are intact. Vehicles exhibit burned exteriors with rubber window gaskets, seatbelts, and upholstery intact. As each tower is still going down, a large plume of powder or dust from pulverized material goes upward. What caused that? One guy hung out of a window on the 105th story and took off his pants. Lots of people took off their clothes before jumping. Why?
As stated, and quoted, the government was forced to abandon the pancake theory. I have never paid one bit of attention to the NIST or government report. I fully agree with PROTEC's report. PROTEC is the Professional Demolitionist's Association. ASSERTION #1 “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.” PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero. ASSERTION #2 “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
John Gross, NIST= Liar
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#2. To: Operation 40 (#0)
#3. To: Deckard, Operation 40, Palmdale (#1)
1. Says insane thing (probably about chemtrails), and if you dispute, insists that you “Do your own research!”
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
Like, I realized one day that people saying crazy things were always following it up with “Do your own research!”
#5. To: GarySpFC (#2)
The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel...
#6. To: Palmdale (#4)
#7. To: Gatlin (#5)
#8. To: Operation 40 (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#9. To: GarySpFC (#2)
#10. To: Gatlin, GarySpFC, Operation40, A K A Stone (#3)
Corroborating Reports
It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site.
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5 “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#11. To: Logsplitter (#9)
Unignited thermite was found in dust
#12. To: Logsplitter (#9)
Unignited thermite was found in dust and debris from the demolition of the 3 towers. Thermite does not just occur in nature. It's man-made. I could make a better case for my theory of what happened that day than you could for that fairy tale the neo- cons are trying to foist upon the world.
#13. To: Palmdale (#11)
#14. To: Logsplitter (#9)
#15. To: Logsplitter (#13)
#16. To: Gatlin (#15)
#17. To: Logsplitter (#16)
#18. To: Logsplitter (#13)
I don't need to watch that clip
#19. To: GarySpFC (#2)
Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie.
Notice to 9-ll truthers. Don't align your selves with stupidity in attempts to attribute blame to the federal government. If you do, when the time comes that you actually have something intelligent to say, you will be dismissed.
#20. To: rlk (#19)
That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it.
#21. To: GarySpFC (#20)
(Edited)
The Truthers claim the steel melted, but in reality what happened was it was just weakened.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#22. To: Deckard (#21)
The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward. One primary difference between these two co llapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter. As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.
#23. To: GarySpFC (#22)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#24. To: Deckard (#21)
1. The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know, and those that were have acknowledged that they don’t know for sure.
2. Photographs that we have examined purporting to show demolition equipment extracting “molten steel” from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris is one thing, but “molten steel beams” is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up. The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires - while very hot – were not hot enough to melt steel.
3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymi ty to prevent harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.
4. The assertion that thermite played a role in the towers’ collapse has been put forth by Steven Jones, a Professor at Brigham Young University. This author spoke with Professor Jones at length in February 2006, and we have corresponded via email a few times since. As he has explained it, metallurgic tests were conducted on two sections of steel beams that were saved for 9/11 memorials in the New York area. These beams apparently tested positive for “trace amounts of thermite”, which led Jones to conclude that thermite was used on 9/11 by unknown parties to compromise support beams in WTC 1, 2 and 7. Professor Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal. And a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams. Could they have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site? Could they have been exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, or in storage, or during the transfer processes from Ground Zero to the memorial sites? We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued
#25. To: Deckard (#23)
#26. To: GarySpFC (#25)
Hot air comes from those who don't have a clue regarding the nature of explosives.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#27. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#3)
You can't handle the truth!
#28. To: GarySpFC (#2)
The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent.
The Beijing Television Cultural Center fire was a massive blaze on 9 February 2009, in the centre of Beijing, involving the uncompleted Television Cultural Center (TVCC) building
The Beijing Cultural Centre building after the fire8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
#29. To: Operation 40 (#28)
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
#30. To: Deckard (#26)
#31. To: GarySpFC (#29)
heavy debris hit WTC 7, causing damage to the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41. So to say WTC 7 collapse due to fire alone ignores the facts.
21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
Three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
#32. To: Operation 40 (#28)
8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone? The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. 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, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
#33. To: Operation 40 (#0)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy.html
Published: September 2, 2006
New York Times Professor Jones also argues that the molten steel found in the rubble was evidence of demolition explosives because an ordinary airplane fire would not generate enough heat. He cited photographs of construction equipment removing debris that appeared to be red.
Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging
#34. To: Logsplitter (#9)
Unignited thermite was found in dust and debris from the demolition of the 3 towers. Thermite does not just occur in nature. It's man-made.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/activethermitic_911.pdf Bentham Science Publishers is a publishing company of scientific, technical, and medical literature based at Sharjah (United Arab Emirates). Bentham publishes more than 116 subscription-based academic journals and over 230 open access journals and e-books. Bentham Science Publishers has operating units in United States, Japan, China, India, and the Netherlands. Its open access branch, Bentham Open Science, has received attention for its questionable peer-review practices.
#35. To: GarySpFC, Deckard (#22)
[PROTEC comment] One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground.
#138. To: ghostcommander (#131)
That is exactly what they do in controlled demolitions of buildings. They cut the columns with shaped charges and the floor above crashes on the floor below and then another floor in pancake fashion. The weight keeps increasing as each floor pancakes down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system -- that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns -- consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). ... the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
(1) How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fail at exactly the same time?
(2) If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would that portion of the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint?
(3) What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time, and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?
#36. To: GarySpFC (#32)
WTC 7, 1, and 2 did not collapse due to fires alone, but due to significant damage and fire.
But you believe everything else you've been told by a pack of liars.
#37. To: Logsplitter (#30)
The laws of physics were suspended that day, which explains why commercial jets were able to fly 150 mph faster than than their maximum speed.
#38. To: nolu chan (#35)
#39. To: GarySpFC (#38)
I have fought this nonsense almost from the beginning, and it makes my blood boil that the people supporting the conspiracy theory don't realize that they are enabling Al Qaeda and similar groups.
nolu chan posted on 2009-12-11 20:04:44 ET NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017 The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the“probable collapse sequence,”although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017 To facilitate communication, the term "collapse" as used in this letter and in NCSTAR 1 means a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure. As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.
drjudywood.com/pdf/070727_PROD01_003222.pdf Similarly, NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-6 (and the associated technical topic reports) document the analysis of the fire growth and spread, the thennal analysis, and the response of the damaged structures to fire loads up to the point of collapse initiation.
#40. To: nolu chan (#39)
(Edited)
I have declined to support any theory that violates the laws of physics and is impossible. The pancake theory has been proven impossible. That does not infer that any other theory has been shown to be correct.
Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.”
This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later).
Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from above.
Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable.
Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points. The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.
There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow “cutter charges” to initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as “pre- burning”, to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer- perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc. All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse – working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction – or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes’ impact with these same areas. This is impossible.
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upp er- floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.
The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.
One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended- duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter.
As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]