Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Steven Gaal

911 Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Recommended Posts

911 Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics

ProfJones 09/21/2012 911 blogger site

PhD Physicist Grabbe: Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics

My tenacious colleague Dr. Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.

Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972.

Dr. Grabbe has also published a notable book providing his scientific analyses of the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC7. Loaded with photographs, this is his fourth book written for the general public.

"National Swindle on the World Trade Center" challenges the official story of 9/11 with scientific data and analysis. Initial pages are available free here:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098JOSJS#reader_B0098JOSJS

I see that the book is free in Kindle form for Amazon Prime members, a generous offer IMO: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098JOSJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get too excited about the supposed paper just yet, truthers previously claimed to have published papers in the same journal but the turned out to be two short review of a legitimately peer-reviewed papers which appeared in the opinion section. Truthers have yet to publish a paper outside of their own journals without having paid for the privilege.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf pg 915

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000025

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure this is the right topic for this, but what the hey. THIS is how the WTC towers were constructed: a "handful" of central supports, with the building shell "hanging" from their tops:

1eO14Ue.jpg

And why when they're smashed into, and weakened by fire, the whole edifice comes crumbling down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html

====================================

FEMA deceived NIST about the design and construction of the twin towers. This fact makes mathematical, forensic engineering analysis of collapse impossible. Accordingly the official "cause of death" for 3,000 murders in 20 seconds, on 9-11 is invalid. Due process and equal protection of law requires a valid cause of death. The state authority of law enforcement in New York state has not provided Constitutional due process. Family members of victims of the Twin Towers events need to file a "Request to Amend Vital Record" with the NYC coroner. Evidence justifying amendment. The Basic deception below graphically shows a core structure that did not exist. (before Silversteins scanned blueprints

were added to what the public thought they had.)

=========================

SEE LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION.

QUESTION if truth is on the establishment/mythbuster side then why deception ??????????????????????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
###########################################
###########################################
####################################
####################################

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109
Email: stj911@gmail.com

Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower Scans of original drawings of the North Tower of the World Trade Center have been published online by a coalition of independent 9/11 researchers and journalists.

Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) March 27, 2007 -- A coalition of independent 9/11 investigators and journalists today announced the online publication of a set of original blueprints of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The set is composed of over 200 never-before-published drawings, including plans, elevations, and details, given to physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones by an individual interested in a more complete analysis. Groups presenting the plans include Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, 9-11 Research, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. A multi-resolution drawing viewer for the blueprints is located at 9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net).

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said, "We cannot truly understand what happened in these historical structural failure events when we are not allowed access to the construction documents." Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."

Since the 9/11 attacks, numerous groups and individuals have challenged the official explanation that the Twin Towers experienced total structural collapse due to a combination of aircraft impact and fire damage. Challengers assert that the WTC Towers were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, rather than fires and impact damage.

"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."

The most recent version of the official explanation has been supplied by the three-year multi-million-dollar study of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which abandoned the earlier truss-failure-based "pancake" theory proposed by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study in favor of a theory of "global collapse" induced by a chain of events including impact column damage, dislodging of fireproofing, floor sagging, and "column instability".

Although NIST's 2005 Final Report did not explain how collapse initiation led to global collapse, in 2006 it responded to some aspects of the demolition theory in a Frequently Asked Questions sheet. NIST blamed the speeds of the failures on the momentum of the falling top portions of the buildings, stating that "the momentum . . . so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below, that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, and others responded to the FAQ on websites and via emails, but received no more communication from NIST.

The release of the blueprints is believed to be the first public presentation of a significant number of detailed architectural drawings of the destroyed skyscrapers. In 2002, lead FEMA investigator Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers was denied access to the plans by the Port Authority until he agreed to sign a waiver stating that his group would not use the blueprints to sue the agency. Corley and other officials testifying before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse drew angry comments from members of Congress regarding the withholding of the blueprints and the removal and scrapping of approximately 80% of structural steel from the debris pile without examination by any fire experts.

Another expert at the hearings, Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, stated, "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse." Investigators at the time stated that they did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence.

Public access to blueprints of the three destroyed skyscrapers - the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 - has been a long-standing goal of the 9/11 research community. The inability to access data on the structural design of the buildings has been an impediment to further investigation of the theory, these researchers say. One goal they have is to remodel the collapses and see if NIST's findings can be replicated.

"A key element of the scientific method is reproducibility - can others repeat the experiment and get the same results?" Jim Hoffman said, investigator and creator of www.wtc7.net . "Without the original data, findings cannot be examined scientifically. Even the most prominent scientists and engineers in history have made mistakes. But without the ability to try to replicate others' findings, we might keep on making the same mistakes over and over."

Groups releasing the plans cite support for the demolition theory in their organizations and elsewhere by a variety of professionals including structural and civil engineers, architects, and physicists. Supporters point to several features which they say cannot be explained by a gravity-driven collapse, including the speed, symmetry, explosiveness, thoroughness of pulverization, and totality of these events, and numerous reports of molten metal pools in the debris piles.

The research of physicist Steven E. Jones has focused on the molten metal pools found in basement areas under rubble piles of the Twin Towers and Building 7. He states in his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse," that the observations of molten metal "are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel."

Neither of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' destruction - FEMA's and NIST's - disclose core column dimensions - dimensions now apparent in the blueprints. Hoffman believes these studies minimized the strength of the cores and their structural role, as did the Commission Report. "The Commission Report denied the existence of the core columns," he says, "describing each Tower's structural core as 'a hollow steel shaft.'"

Hoffman says that the newly released blueprints show what analysis of independent investigators have long held on the basis of construction photographs and scattered reports in journals, such as the Engineering News Record, from the era of the Towers' construction: "The Towers contained 47 large core columns, more than a dozen of which retained dimensions of 54 x 22 inches through the 66th floor, and tapered in stages on higher floors. The core columns around the South Tower's crash zone were about twice as heavy as those in the North Tower's crash zone."

Hoffman's associate editor, Gregg Roberts, sees the NIST Final Report as a whitewash. "The refusal by NIST to fully disclose its computer models, its assumptions, and the conflicts of interest of the many defense contractors who assisted in this whitewash of an investigation reveal the true intentions behind the Report."

Groups investigating the Towers' destruction also cite the case of the collapse of WTC Building 7. In 2004 during the 9/11 Commission hearings, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee (FSC) asked of the Commission, "On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" The group formed in the fall of 2001 to demand an independent investigation into the attacks. However, 70 percent of the questions were either not sufficiently addressed or not addressed at all by the Commission. NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report. The newly released blueprints do not include WTC 7, built 10 years after the main World Trade Center complex.

Dr. Steven Jones has described the type of investigation he would like to see. He states in his paper, "A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion."

Critics of the Bush Administration's secretive policies have claimed that the alternative accounts of the attack have thrived in part because of the lack of information such as the WTC blueprints.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (stj911.org)
9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net)
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org)

#################

9/11: A Closer Look at the Official Conspiracy Theory - 911Truth.org

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://911truth.org/downloads/slideshows/A_New_Standard.ppt&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=zHEmVKyCDovboATEooCICw&ved=0CC4QFjAEOCg&usg=AFQjCNHfany5bbnjREvGtbmO-hRXgBNfvA





Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"FEMA deceived NIST about the design and construction of the twin towers."

NIST didn't get it's data "about the design and construction of the twin towers." from the FEMA report which was actually prepared by the ASCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"March 27, 2007 -- A coalition of independent 9/11 investigators and journalists today announced the online publication of a set of original blueprints of the North Tower of the World Trade Center."

2007???

Couldn't find anyting more recent? How do the supposed blueprints contradict the NIST reports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Written by Tony Szamboti

The End of the Road for NIST

By Tony Szamboti

Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.

Table of Contents WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER

wtc7_frombot.png 2 1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114 2 2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM 2 3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED 3 4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL 3 5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES 4 6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS 5 7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS 6 ALL THREE BUILDINGS 6 8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL 6 9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C 6 10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION 7 11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED 8 12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS. 8 13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE 9 14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL 10 THE TWIN TOWERS

twin_towers_horizon.png 10 15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED 10 16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED 11 17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL 11 18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY 12 19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE 12 20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE 12 21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES 13 22. NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED 14 23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS 16 24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS 17 25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED 17 WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER 1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114

Technical Statement: NIST maintains that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire acting upon the 13th floor A2001 girder between columns 79 and 44 and the beams framing into it from the east. They said that the beams expanded by 5.5” (revised in June 2012 to 6.25”), broke the girder erection bolts, and pushed this girder off its column 79 seat. This girder fell to floor 12, which then precipitated a cascade of floor failures from floor 12 down to floor 5, and column 79 then became unsupported laterally, causing it to buckle. It is then said that column 79's buckling caused the upper floors to cascade down, which started a

Read more...

Next >

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Szamboti is a mechanical engineer who works with aerospace, thus he is not especially qualified to critique multi-thousand page exhaustively researched reports prepared by qualified structural engineers. Last I checked the truthers had only signed up about 2 dozen SE about half of whom worked on things like ships,oil rigs, bridges etc, of the half or so who actually had BUILDING design experience with only one or two exceptions none made any claim to have designed anything more than a couple stories tall. But they gave no indication of having actually read the NIST executive reports,let alone the dozens of supporting ones. Of the 3 or 4 (or was it 5?) who mentioned the report none claimed relevant expertise. Gaal get back to us if you can find atruther SE who has read at least one of the NIST reports AND has RELEVANT (i.e. highrise) design experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Szamboti is a mechanical engineer who works with aerospace, thus he is not especially qualified to critique multi-thousand page exhaustively researched reports prepared by qualified structural engineers. Last I checked the truthers had only signed up about 2 dozen SE about half of whom worked on things like ships,oil rigs, bridges etc, of the half or so who actually had BUILDING design experience with only one or two exceptions none made any claim to have designed anything more than a couple stories tall. But they gave no indication of having actually read the NIST executive reports,let alone the dozens of supporting ones. Of the 3 or 4 (or was it 5?) who mentioned the report none claimed relevant expertise. Gaal get back to us if you can find atruther SE who has read at least one of the NIST reports AND has RELEVANT (i.e. highrise) design experience.

  • by qualified structural engineers COUNTER (3 people dominated report)
  • AE911Truth Structural Engineer Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7 Thursday, 06 May 2010 18:26
    brookman.jpg

    Structural engineer Ron Brookman probes the NIST analyses of World Trade Center Seven (WTC 7). This article titled The NIST Analyses: A Close Look at WTC 7 is available free as a download, or can be purchased as a spiral-bound hardcopy in the AE911Truth online store. Brookman‘s careful examination of the NIST final reports regarding WTC 7 reveals an abundance of deficiencies and discrepancies. These come in many varieties. Some are erroneous, in that they conflict with scientific findings reported in the open literature. Others are inconsistencies internal to the NIST reports. And finally, others are incomplete with respect to failure to investigate matters that had been flagged as needing further investigation in official reports from other government agencies.

    Once the final edits were complete, Brookman offered the following comment to accompany the article’s announcement.:

    “We still have the law on our side. The National Construction Safety Team Act requires NIST to establish the likely technical cause of the building failure. It also requires a public report including the analysis demonstrating the likely cause of failure. Upon reading the final NCSTAR reports issued in November 2008 regarding WTC 7, I could not find a complete analysis that proved the NIST hypothesis was correct. Instead I found numerous inconsistencies and unfinished business. Read the article if you are curious, and keep the NCSTAR reports handy for reference.”

    Brookman is one of over 40 structural engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11, with emphasis on the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC building 7. He is also one of the interviewees in the article, 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High–Rises on 9/11. For a broader book–length exposé on WTC 7 see also David Ray Griffin’s The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center7 — Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

    Brookman received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New theory explains collapse of World Trade Center's Twin Towers.

According to a theory advanced by a materials scientist in Norway, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminum from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers in Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001.

The explosions

"What happened then?"

"All the floors in the Twin Towers were equipped with sprinkler systems. All the water above the hot aircraft bodies must have turned to steam. If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water. From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."

"The aluminium would immediately react with the water, with the result of a local rise on temperature of several hundred degrees, in addition to the explosions that were due to the fact that these reactions release hydrogen. Such reactions are particularly powerful when rust or other catalysts are present, which can raise the temperature to more than 1500o C."

"The aluminium industry has reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980. Alcoa Aluminium carried out an experiment under controlled conditions, in which 20 kilos of aluminium smelt were allowed to react with 20 kilos of water, to which some rust was added. The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter."

"Many people in New York reported that they had heard explosions just before the buildings collapsed. Film taken of the buildings also showed explosions in the floor below the impacts. Given that the amount of aluminium involved was large in comparison with the quantity of water, and since rust was probably also present, I believe that it is highly likely that the building collapsed as a result of a series of extremely energy-rich aluminium-water explosions."

Read full article here.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm Ward

Experienced Member

av-6407.jpg?_r=0

Posted Today, 12:20 PM

New theory explains collapse of World Trade Center's Twin Towers.

According to a theory advanced by a materials scientist in Norway, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminum from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers in Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

################################

(DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS RESPOND)

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/11/911-theories-expert-vs-expert-aluminum.html

9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert - Aluminum Water Explosions Took the Towers Down?

Posted by JM Talboo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ySUrEiVFIM (VIDEO)

I'm glad Jonathan Cole included the part about the new theory that water and melted aluminium from the aircraft was the cause of the explosions in the Twin Towers. I just recently learned of this myself and was planning on posting about it anyway.

I found the theory interesting because in purposing that aluminum water explosions took the Towers down, scientist Christian Simensen is acknowledging (unlike the government and "debunkers") that explosions equal in power to those observed in controlled demolitions did indeed take place.

As noted in a 2009 paper entitled Safety Coatings to Prevent Molten Aluminum-Water Explosions:

Aluminum Water Explosions


Casthouse explosions are occurring at a significant rate. There were at least 18 deaths reported last year, all which are attributed to molten aluminum trapping water. Any time you mix two liquids with vastly differing temperatures an explosion can occur. Mixing liquid aluminum (1300F-700C) and water (50F-10C) results in a steam explosion. This explosion is rated as Force 1 through Force 3. A Force 1 causes metal, less then 10 pounds (4.5Kg), to be thrown a short distance, usually up to 15 feet with little if any property damage. A Force 2 is a violent steam explosion. The metal is thrown 15 to 50 feet (6.4m-12.8m) and involves a considerable amount of metal. Fatalities and serious injury can result from this type of explosion. A Force 3 explosion is a catastrophic event. Metal is thrown more then 50 feet and extensive property damage and injury can result. There will be a white powder present indicating the reaction of aluminum with oxygen.
In this reaction every pound of aluminum equals 3 pounds of TNT
.

When I asked blog contributor Adam Taylor if he had heard of this he replied:

Here's what I wrote to someone who initially sent me
:


I don't think this guy's theory makes much sense. According to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the sprinklers were not operating on the main fire floors because the planes severed the water lines. There was water running down through the building from the severed water pipes, so the molten aluminum could theoretically have gone down through the buildings. But the problem there is that the collapses did start near where the planes impacted, i. e. the fire floors. Plus, the collapse of the North Tower started on the 98th floor, and only the tip of the starboard wing went into that floor. Also, this person doesn't seem to understand NIST's theory on the cause of the collapse. It's not the beams that were supposed to be over-heated, but the floor trusses, which then pulled on the exterior walls, causing them to bow inward and then break. Now I don't believe fire caused that, but I don't see how his aluminum-water theory accounts for that. This just seems to be a weak attempt to explain the accounts of explosions in the Towers that could be evidence of demolition. I've seen similar arguments in the past.

Cole wrote at the time:

Remarkably...


...that airplane aluminum, after it was initially shredded precisely like shot from 15 blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun, ripping off every stitch of insulation even on the backside of the columns, reformed itself into larger pieces as it heated up in that fateful hour. Suddenly the sprinkler system sprang to life, with its soothing water focused directly on that molten aluminum which had ample time to coalesce into series of pools at critical columns, creating a cacophony of explosions that previously went undetected by NIST.


Coincidently one intrepid aluminum pool managed to escape that cooling water, and poured outside about 7 minutes before the south towers final destruction, combining with wood paneling and desks, causing it's molten flow to look exactly like molten iron. Incredibly the pulsating jets of water, synchronistically timed as it exploded those aluminum pools, blew out the floors thrusting massive perimeter panels hundreds of feet, while turning acres of concrete into powder. Yet small gobs of aluminum doggedly clung to key points on the spire of core columns which stood tall long after the main floors fell, finally exploding from the humidity, dropping those very last remnants of a once proud icon, straight down.


Alas dear reader heed my warning, and be ever vigilant when flying a jet plane with hot engines through a rainstorm, or this same tragic fate could happen to you.

On an article from physorg.com "amhippi" comments:

Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (
). Sorry,
. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.

In short, Simensen's theory is untenable, but in his attempt to account for the actual collapse features, he at least shows that he has an understanding of what 9/11 "debunkers" can't seem to grasp. But it doesn't take a scientist.

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please list Talboo's credentials

Golly you mean the poster ?? Not a question about the man who made report . Why your so xxxxx obvious. I wonder if you know how xxxxx obvious you are ????

+++++++++++====

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=======
KokomoJojo poster
Thread: So NIST lied about the failure mechanism of WTC 7 in the 911 Official Report?
It would seem the official "story" and the government and its agencies are once again subject collateral attack pending suits for fraud in their reports.

This appears to be raising the 911 truther movement to a whole new level of notoriety and solidifying their credibility.

As Cole has written in his article, "NIST's failure to show these stiffeners or take them into account in its analysis is yet another area where the omissions and incorrect statements are so egregious, anyone who understands these issues must by now begin to question NIST's motives."

Feeling strongly that the stiffeners revelation is the strongest evidence yet of fraudulent omissions by NIST, Szamboti, Cole, and other professionals at AE911Truth began asking what could be done from a legal perspective. Szamboti reached out to his contacts in the 9/11 Truth community, and Bill Pepper stepped forward. Eventually, a strategy was developed with the ultimate goal of forcing a whole new and independent examination into the collapse of Building 7 by either NIST itself or, better yet, an independent group.

As Pepper put it in the letter that he sent to the Inspector General on December 12, 2013, "Avoidance through stonewalling and prolonged silence will no longer suffice. This will not go away...Silence from your office or a rejection of this reasonable request may prompt my clients to seek legal recourse and to raise this issue with their colleagues in Europe where a number of government officials and professionals have long been critical of the official U.S. Government's position and explanation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11."

Included in Bill Pepper’s letter to the Inspector General was the DVD by AE911Truth: “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.

It should be noted that the OIG pledges publically, “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Commerce's programs and operations. The OIG also endeavors to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. OIG monitors and tracks the use of taxpayer dollars through audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations. The Inspector General keeps the Secretary of Commerce and Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to Commerce's activities and the need for corrective action.

In consideration, especially, of the stiffeners issue, our desired outcome is that the OIG will consider Pepper’s letter, evaluate the analysis provided in the letter, detect that NIST’s report on the unprecedented collapse of Building 7 is fundamentally flawed, if not fraudulent, and declare that the corrective action needed is a true and honest investigation into the free-fall collapse of Building 7 based on all the evidence, including the missing stiffeners and also the evidence for explosive demolition. Will the OIG take its mandate seriously? Is such a scenario feasible, or even possible? With your participation in our upcoming campaign, we think that it is. Stay tuned for the Action Alerts.

As legal and other strategies are being weighed, the issue has picked up steam

William Pepper, Attorney at Law, Pursuing NIST via OIG Re: Fraudulent WTC 7 Report

The OIG wants to get out of it unscathed with an apology, when crimes appear to have been committed.

would a traffic cop let any of us get out of a speeding violation with an apology?

The agencies involved in public affairs have both trust and fiduciary obligations to the public they are presumably intended to serve.

What else did nist lie about?

===
jaydeehess poster
:

If this is to be in contention then the issue of what else could have caused the building to collapse is involved.

Nist claimed fire

Nist claimed fire caused expansion, beam walked

Nist claimed column 79 failed due to that expansion

Nist made false claims about the stiffners and walk off plate.

That is all that need be proven, this crap about proving thermite is just another debunker red herring dead end circular reasoning argument.

We can draw the following conclusions from this.

Nist chose the "best", possibly the "only" way they could bluff a natural collapse.

All other choices were not plausible.

Proven to fraud, it did not happen the way nist claims the only alternative is not natural. No other choices unless you want to go with "super natural!"

Lets see that leaves us with.....

BOOM!

However if you believe that it could have walked off anyway I would love to hear the stories you guys come up with! LOL

19481706-dreamy-emoticon-with-his-head-p

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×