WTC 6

[Len Colby]

Still not directly relevant to what happened to 6 WTC

[Steven Gaal]

_{TO REPEAT IF WTC 7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION, THEN THIS PROMOTES THE ARGUMENT THAT WTC 6 WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION. THIS IS A REASONABLE}

_{CONTENTION. ##################################################}

_{UNREFUTED BELOW}

_{unrefuted (ˌʌnrɪˈfjuːtɪd)}

_Definitions

_adjective

1. _{(of a theory, principle, claim etc) not refuted or disproved}
   
2. _{==============================================}
   
3. _{WHY POPULAR MECHANICS CAN’T FACE UP TO REALITY
   Part 7: WTC 7 Fire and Column Failure
   Editor’s Note: This is Part 7 (see Part 6) of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of their book Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.
   (Quotes from PM’s book are shown in red and with page numbers.)
   Although Popular Mechanics states the office fires in Building 7 reached temperatures of 1,100°F, both critics and supporters of the official story with technical expertise have pointed out that there is no evidence for fires that hot.
   The Popular Mechanics chapter regarding the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 shows itself to be no more promising than its previous chapter on the Twin Towers. PM begins this section by summarizing the history of the controversy surrounding Building 7 and the numerous investigations carried out regarding its collapse. PM correctly notes that many agencies were located in the building as tenants, including the Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City’s Office of Emergency Management. ⁱ The chapter discusses the initial FEMA investigation and how, after FEMA failed to provide an explanation for Building 7’s collapse, the task was then handed over to NIST. PM touts the NIST report on Building 7 as having finally proved the building was not destroyed with explosives. Contrary to PM’s assertion that the reason for WTC7’s collapse is “ less complicated and even more remarkable” (pg 66) than controlled demolition, it is apparent that the cause of collapse is still demolition, and that the NIST WTC7 report utterly fails to provide a reasonable explanation of what actually caused the collapse of the building.
   The first section of PM’s WTC7 chapter mainly discusses the fire and damage to Building 7 and how this supposedly caused the building to collapse. Here is a summary of what NIST claims caused the collapse of WTC7:}
   
   • _{The fires caused sufficient thermal expansion in the steel beams on the east side of WTC 7 to force the steel girder connecting Columns 44 and 79 to lose its connection with the latter, and to damage the floor framing on floors near Column 79}
     
   • _{The loss of that girder’s connection to Column 79, along with fire– induced damage to the floor systems around Column 79, caused Floor 13 to collapse.}
     
   • _{The collapse of Floor 13 caused all the floors below it down to Floor 5 to collapse.}
     
   • _{Column 79, being left with inadequate lateral support, buckled between Floors 5 and 14.}
     
   • _{This buckling caused the downward movement of Column 79 (which caused the collapse of the east penthouse).}
     
   • _{Columns 80 and 81, having also lost support, buckled, causing all the floors on the east side of WTC7, which had been weakened by the fire, to collapse..)}
     
   • _{All the other interior columns then failed, leaving the building a hollow shell.}
     
   • _{After most of the collapse had already occurred in the building’s interior, where it could not be seen from the outside, the exterior columns failed, completing the collapse. ⁱⁱ}
     

_{However, each of these points in this fantastic scenario is problematic:}

• _{Though PM claims that the fires in WTC7 reached temperatures ranging from 299°C (570°F) to 593°C (1,100°F), scientists on both sides of the argument have concluded that the fires could not have become this hot and could not have reached the temperatures claimed by NIST:}
  
  • _{[R]aising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams. —Kevin Ryan ⁱⁱⁱ}
    
  • _{NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C (570°F) – a condition that could never have been realized with NIST’s postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading. –Dr. Frank Greening ^iv}
    

• _{The fire that NIST claims started the collapse (via thermal expansion of long-span beams) had actually burned out in the area of the collapse more than an hour before the collapse. It could not, therefore, have caused the collapse at 5:20 p.m., as NIST claims:}
  
  • _{Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was [entirely] burned out by this time. ^v}
    
  _{Examination of the photographs in the Final Report shows that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse more than an hour before the collapse.}

• _{NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the result of their Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This is simply not done in a scientific analysis:}
  
  • _{Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10%. ^vi}
    
  • _{Only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis. ^vii}
    

• _{NIST applied this arbitrarily increased temperature for 4 hours of heating, ignoring their statement that the fires lasted only 20 to 30 minutes in any location. :}
  
  • _{The building response is examined at 3.5 h and 4.0 h of heating. At 3.5 h, the floor systems had fire–induced damage and failures of some connections, beams, and girders. After 4.0 h of heating, substantially more damage and failures had occurred in the WTC7 structural floor system, particularly in the northeast region surrounding Column 79. ^viii}
    

_{Popular Mechanics repeats NIST’s claim that the failure of column 79 caused the collapse of the entire building, even though the scientific evidence contradicts this theory.}

• _{NIST applied the 4 hours of heating in 1–½ seconds over the entire northeast part of the floor, again creating an unrealistic situation and result:}
  
  • _{Ramping up the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600°C for the beams and 500°C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. ^ix}
    

• _{NIST heated the steel beams, but not the concrete slab above, and then claimed that the temperature differential caused the shear studs to fail. In reality, the fire would have heated them both nearly uniformly – without significant differential expansion.}
  
  • _{No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab. ^x}
    
  _{Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel. Leaving this expansion out of the calculations in order to show failure of the shear studs is both unscientific and fraudulent.}

_{Certainty of impending collapse}

_{David Ray Griffin noted in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9“11 Report is Unscientific and False: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False:}

• _{f NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.}
  
• _{Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists work ng for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’” Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget–“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”}
  

• _{↑For the full list of WTC7 tenants, see: http://wtc7.net/background.html}
  
• _{↑Summary adapted from The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, by David Ray Griffin, pg 210–211}
  
• _{↑Quoted from: http://911review.com...NIST_WTC7.html}
  
• _{↑Quoted from: http://www.cool...tsNCSTAR1-9.pdf}
  
• _{↑NIST “L” pg 26 [pdf pg 30]}
  
• _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1A pg 32 [pdf pg 74] http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=861610}
  
• _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1A pg 36 [pdf pg 78]}
  
• _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol. 2 pg 493 [pdf pg 155]:http://wtc7.net/background.html}
  
• _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol. 1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]}
  
• _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol. 1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]}
  

[Matthew Lewis]

• ########### BOYLLYN ##################
  
• Timing confirmed
  I contacted the archives of CNN during the summer of 2002 to inquire about the precise time of their video footage of a huge dust cloud coming from a mysterious blast that appeared to have occurred at the U.S. Customs House (WTC 6) at about 9:03 a.m. -- the same minute that the second plane struck the South Tower on 9-11. The raw video material has precise time markings, which they provided.
  As I reported in 2002, CNN confirmed that the mysterious blast had occurred at precisely the same moment that the second plane struck the South Tower:
  I contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed. CNN's Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist who could not give his last name, said, "That's correct." When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that clearly reached 550 feet, soaring higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said, "We can't figure it out."
  

The above is a not correct. The footage was NOT filmed at 9:04. The video shows someone was speaking to Tom Clancy. Years ago when Jack White brought this nonsense up I searched through the online video archives for that day and found the footage in question. The footage was from 11:53, AFTER both tower collapses when they were reshowing footage from the earlier collapses. The screen capture with "voice of Tom Clancy" was clearly showing the first collapse. The dust cloud is from that collapse. Here is the post

http://educationforu...285#entry119397

The link in that post to the video archive still works so you can watch for yourself.

Moderator Note: I have edited the above post to remove ambiguity; the post could be misunderstood to mean that Matt was saying that Steven had lied; this is not what the post meant. It meant that Matt asserts the statement by Chris Bollyn was a "lie". To ensure that the ambiguity was removed, I have edited the post to read "not correct".

Edited December 11, 2012 by Evan Burton
remove confusion

[Steven Gaal]

_{OK ,but thats post # 8. Thread at post # 32 before your response.}

_{Now to repeat because of its importance.POST # 32}

_{############################################################}

_{TO REPEAT IF WTC 7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION, THEN THIS PROMOTES THE ARGUMENT THAT WTC 6 WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION. THIS IS A REASONABLE}

_{CONTENTION. ##################################################}

_{UNREFUTED BELOW}

_{unrefuted (ˌʌnrɪˈfjuːtɪd)}

_Definitions

_adjective

• _{(of a theory, principle, claim etc) not refuted or disproved}
  
• _{==============================================}
  
• _{WHY POPULAR MECHANICS CAN’T FACE UP TO REALITY
  Part 7: WTC 7 Fire and Column Failure
  Editor’s Note: This is Part 7 (see Part 6) of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of their book Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.
  (Quotes from PM’s book are shown in red and with page numbers.)
  Although Popular Mechanics states the office fires in Building 7 reached temperatures of 1,100°F, both critics and supporters of the official story with technical expertise have pointed out that there is no evidence for fires that hot.
  The Popular Mechanics chapter regarding the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 shows itself to be no more promising than its previous chapter on the Twin Towers. PM begins this section by summarizing the history of the controversy surrounding Building 7 and the numerous investigations carried out regarding its collapse. PM correctly notes that many agencies were located in the building as tenants, including the Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City’s Office of Emergency Management. ⁱ The chapter discusses the initial FEMA investigation and how, after FEMA failed to provide an explanation for Building 7’s collapse, the task was then handed over to NIST. PM touts the NIST report on Building 7 as having finally proved the building was not destroyed with explosives. Contrary to PM’s assertion that the reason for WTC7’s collapse is “ less complicated and even more remarkable” (pg 66) than controlled demolition, it is apparent that the cause of collapse is still demolition, and that the NIST WTC7 report utterly fails to provide a reasonable explanation of what actually caused the collapse of the building.
  The first section of PM’s WTC7 chapter mainly discusses the fire and damage to Building 7 and how this supposedly caused the building to collapse. Here is a summary of what NIST claims caused the collapse of WTC7:}
  
  • _{The fires caused sufficient thermal expansion in the steel beams on the east side of WTC 7 to force the steel girder connecting Columns 44 and 79 to lose its connection with the latter, and to damage the floor framing on floors near Column 79}
    
  • _{The loss of that girder’s connection to Column 79, along with fire– induced damage to the floor systems around Column 79, caused Floor 13 to collapse.}
    
  • _{The collapse of Floor 13 caused all the floors below it down to Floor 5 to collapse.}
    
  • _{Column 79, being left with inadequate lateral support, buckled between Floors 5 and 14.}
    
  • _{This buckling caused the downward movement of Column 79 (which caused the collapse of the east penthouse).}
    
  • _{Columns 80 and 81, having also lost support, buckled, causing all the floors on the east side of WTC7, which had been weakened by the fire, to collapse..)}
    
  • _{All the other interior columns then failed, leaving the building a hollow shell.}
    
  • _{After most of the collapse had already occurred in the building’s interior, where it could not be seen from the outside, the exterior columns failed, completing the collapse. ⁱⁱ}
    

  _{However, each of these points in this fantastic scenario is problematic:}

  • _{Though PM claims that the fires in WTC7 reached temperatures ranging from 299°C (570°F) to 593°C (1,100°F), scientists on both sides of the argument have concluded that the fires could not have become this hot and could not have reached the temperatures claimed by NIST:}
    
    • _{[R]aising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams. —Kevin Ryan ⁱⁱⁱ}
      
    • _{NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C (570°F) – a condition that could never have been realized with NIST’s postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading. –Dr. Frank Greening ^iv}
      

  • _{The fire that NIST claims started the collapse (via thermal expansion of long-span beams) had actually burned out in the area of the collapse more than an hour before the collapse. It could not, therefore, have caused the collapse at 5:20 p.m., as NIST claims:}
    
    • _{Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was [entirely] burned out by this time. ^v}
      
    _{Examination of the photographs in the Final Report shows that the fire had burned out in the area of the collapse more than an hour before the collapse.}

  • _{NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the result of their Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This is simply not done in a scientific analysis:}
    
    • _{Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10%. ^vi}
      
    • _{Only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis. ^vii}
      

  • _{NIST applied this arbitrarily increased temperature for 4 hours of heating, ignoring their statement that the fires lasted only 20 to 30 minutes in any location. :}
    
    • _{The building response is examined at 3.5 h and 4.0 h of heating. At 3.5 h, the floor systems had fire–induced damage and failures of some connections, beams, and girders. After 4.0 h of heating, substantially more damage and failures had occurred in the WTC7 structural floor system, particularly in the northeast region surrounding Column 79. ^viii}
      

  _{Popular Mechanics repeats NIST’s claim that the failure of column 79 caused the collapse of the entire building, even though the scientific evidence contradicts this theory.}

  • _{NIST applied the 4 hours of heating in 1–½ seconds over the entire northeast part of the floor, again creating an unrealistic situation and result:}
    
    • _{Ramping up the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600°C for the beams and 500°C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. ^ix}
      

  • _{NIST heated the steel beams, but not the concrete slab above, and then claimed that the temperature differential caused the shear studs to fail. In reality, the fire would have heated them both nearly uniformly – without significant differential expansion.}
    
    • _{No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab. ^x}
      
    _{Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel. Leaving this expansion out of the calculations in order to show failure of the shear studs is both unscientific and fraudulent.}

  _{Certainty of impending collapse}

  _{David Ray Griffin noted in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9“11 Report is Unscientific and False: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False:}

  • _{f NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.}
    
  • _{Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists work ng for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’” Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget–“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”}
    
  • _{↑For the full list of WTC7 tenants, see: http://wtc7.net/background.html}
    
  • _{↑Summary adapted from The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, by David Ray Griffin, pg 210–211}
    
  • _{↑Quoted from: http://911review.com...NIST_WTC7.html}
    
  • _{↑Quoted from: http://www.cool...tsNCSTAR1-9.pdf}
    
  • _{↑NIST “L” pg 26 [pdf pg 30]}
    
  • _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1A pg 32 [pdf pg 74] http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=861610}
    
  • _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1A pg 36 [pdf pg 78]}
    
  • _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol. 2 pg 493 [pdf pg 155]:http://wtc7.net/background.html}
    
  • _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol. 1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]}
    
  • _{↑NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol. 1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]}
    

Edited December 7, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Matthew Lewis]

_{OK ,but thats post # 8. Thread at post # 32 before your response.}

_{Now to repeat spam because of its importance my self-importance.POST # 32}

• 
  

I don't really care. I wasn't talking about WTC 7. does this mean you're conceding the nonsense about WTC 6?

[Len Colby]

_{OK ,but thats post # 8. Thread at post # 32 before your response.}

_{Now to repeat spam because of its importance my self-importance.POST # 32}

• 
  

I don't really care. I wasn't talking about WTC 7. does this mean you're conceding the nonsense about WTC 6?

He knows the 6 WTC stuff has been thoroughly debunked, that's why he wants to change the subject

[Len Colby]

However, each of these points in this fantastic scenario is problematic:

Though PM claims that the fires in WTC7 reached temperatures ranging from 299°C (570°F) to 593°C (1,100°F), scientists on both sides of the argument have concluded that the fires could not have become this hot and could not have reached the temperatures claimed by NIST:

[R]aising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams. —Kevin Ryan iii

NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C (570°F) – a condition that could never have been realized with

NIST’s postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading. –Dr. Frank Greening iv

Greening is a complicated guy, he started as a "truther" then became a "debunker" and is now somewhere in between. Neither he nor Ryan are structural let alone civil engineers. The former is a chemical engineer who worked at nuclear power stations the latter a chemist who worked at a water testing facility.

[Steven Gaal]

Hate to give you a headache,so I'll give you WTC 6 and you give me domolition for the towers and WTC 7.

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

FAQ #4: Sounds of Explosions? Written by John-Michael Talboo Friday, 04 November 2011 13:02

Question:

Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?

, pulled from the NIST archives, reveals sounds of explosions that corroborate the eyewitness testimonies of explosive sounds at WTC7

Answer:

As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions

, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers. A

shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.

Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers' destruction, including these videos of

and

obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7,

, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler. These new videos of the Towers corroborate the many eyewitness reports describing loud pops and other explosive noises at the onset of the destruction. These reports were also obtained through an FOIA lawsuit, their release having been denied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when first requested by the New York Times.

Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust. The partially ignited and unignited residue of this energetic material indicates that thermite and nanothermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. The literature on these materials states that their shockwave characteristics can be "tuned" for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds. Such a capability would make these materials ideal for use in “deceptive” controlled demolitions, in which the muted blast sounds would instinctively be blamed by at least some observers on the buildings' floors hitting each other as part of a "natural" collapse.

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

"No Surrender" BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN

We busted out of class had to get away from those fools

We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school

Tonight I hear the neighborhood drummer sound

I can feel my heart begin to pound

You say you're tired and you just want to close your eyes and follow your dreams down

We made a promise we swore we'd always remember

No retreat no surrender

Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend

No retreat no surrender

Now young faces grow sad and old and hearts of fire grow cold

We swore blood brothers against the wind

I'm ready to grow young again

And hear your sister's voice calling us home across the open yards

Well maybe we could cut someplace of our own

With these drums and these guitars

Blood brothers in the stormy night with a vow to defend

No retreat no surrender

Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim

The walls of my room are closing in

There's a war outside still raging

you say it ain't ours anymore to win

I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed

with a wide open country in my eyes

and these romantic dreams in my head

Edited December 8, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

Hate to give you a headache,so I'll give you WTC 6 and you give me domolition for the towers and WTC 7.

No, this thread is about 6 WTC so I'm only willing to discuss that here, there are plenty of threads about "the towers and WTC 7"

Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust.

I'll make an exception for this point, the Harit/Jones paper was published by Bentham Open a vanity publisher that does not follow standard peer review procedure. The editor-in-chief, who since resigned, did not see this or the other papers before publication. The reviewers were not selected by people with relevant expertise but rather by members of the company's staff who were so clueless they invited people to be editors of journals outside their areas of specialty. Harit indicated he knew some of the reviewers which suggests he gave Bentham a list of his 'peers'. Bentham Open is considered a joke in academic circles.

[Steven Gaal]

_{POPULAR MECHANICS CONSIDERED A JOKE BY SOME}

_{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

_{Popular Mechanics repeats NIST’s claim that the failure of column 79 caused the collapse of the entire building, even though the scientific evidence contradicts this theory.}

• _{NIST applied the 4 hours of heating in 1–½ seconds over the entire northeast part of the floor, again creating an unrealistic situation and result:}
  
  • _{Ramping up the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600°C for the beams and 500°C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. ^ix}
    

• _{NIST heated the steel beams, but not the concrete slab above, and then claimed that the temperature differential caused the shear studs to fail. In reality, the fire would have heated them both nearly uniformly – without significant differential expansion.}
  
  _{Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel. Leaving this expansion out of the calculations in order to show failure of the shear studs is}
  _{both unscientific and fraudulent.}
  
  
  • _{No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab. ^x}
    

_{####################################}

_{Benard Kerick taken to woodshed along with 911 myths}

Edited December 10, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Evan Burton]

TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please be careful if your decide to assert something is a "lie"; if you decide to use this term, you must make it clear that you are saying that the originator of the statement, not the poster, knowingly made a falsehood. Saying a Forum member lied is unacceptable; saying anyone else lied is tolerated but preferably not be used unless you show evidence that they have knowing and deliberatly made an incorrect statement.

If you believe a Forum member has knowing and deliberatly made a misrepresentation of the truth, then contact a Moderator with your proof of such. If such evidence is conclusive, the Forum management may permit like terms to be used.

[Steven Gaal]

TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please be careful if your decide to assert something is a "lie"; //END BURTON

Couldnt agree with you more. // END GAAL

LETS HAVE AN OPEN DEBATE

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://eddieleaks.org/2009/08/29/daniel-sunjata-intellectual-dishonesty-...

By Daniel Sunjata

“The inert masses are mentally and spiritually ill equipped to deal with reality, so they block it out of their minds – aided of course, by the corporate media and the propaganda apparatus of the government itself. This is why fantasy is frequently substituted for reality, plutocracy is mistaken for democracy, and the majority of the people do not know the difference. Millions of good people thus refuse to allow into their psyche the suffering and misery that U.S. policies have produced and exported to the world, even as that reality is closing in upon them.”

- Charles Sullivan

“They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality…and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.”

- George Orwell, 1984

“Article XXXIV OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001”

- From the 35 articles of impeachment introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on 06/09/08 in H.Res. 1258 by Congressman Dennis Kucinich

The list is not a short one. It includes professors, architects, aerospace and aviation professionals, structural/mechanical/& aeronautical engineers, demolition experts, firefighters and other first responders, scientists, theologians, senior members of both the military and intelligence communities, Republican administration appointees, state department veterans, and other government officials from the United States and abroad; credible experts of impeccable pedigree with impressive track records from relevant fields of expertise, whose coolly rational intellects are not easily given to an unfounded belief in outlandish, unsubstantiated, or unverifiable claims. Individuals such as these are numbered among the ranks of skeptics and critics of the official theory of conspiracy regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some pose questions, others draw conclusions, still others (like Congressman Kucinich) go so far as to level accusations and to substantiate them with evidence.

Organizations like Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth (MP911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://AE911Truth.org), Lawyers for 911 Truth (http://www.L911T.com), The Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://wwww.journalof911studies.com), Pilots for 911 Truth (http://wwww.PilotsFor911Truth.org), Fire Fighters for 911 Truth (http://www.FireFightersFor911Truth.org), and Veterans for 911 Truth (http://www.V911T.org), have posted carefully crafted signing statements for all the world to see, and online petitions calling for a new and independent investigation with power of subpoena. Their unanswered questions, the consequent implications that arise, and the fundamental inadequacies they point out in the official reports issued by FEMA, NIST, and the now infamous 9/11 Commission are disturbing to say the very least. Even more disturbing, however, is the corporate media’s revolving door of silence and violence with which those who pose such questions have been greeted. In most cases they are completely ignored, and what might otherwise be front-page news goes virtually unreported. Feigned and transparently disingenuous gestures aimed at affecting the appearance of fair and balanced news coverage occasionally result in an arguably credible expert being granted an interview only to be condescended to, constantly interrupted, shouted down, and verbally abused in the process. Examples abound. Thus, in spite of having shouted their findings from the proverbial rooftops for years, and in spite of such notorious historical precedents as the now declassified Operation Northwoods, there has yet to be any substantive debate, journalistically integrous investigation, or scrutinous inquiry by the establishment or its media into the claim that 9/11 bears all the hallmarks of a complex covert operation of state intelligence; false flag terror; an inside job.

This is not to say, however, that the issue has gone entirely unaddressed by mainstream sources. Hand in hand with the marginalization of informed dissent and deep concern expressed by qualified skeptics like Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, PhD (Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter), Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Sect. Of Treasury under Pres. Reagan), Lynn Margulis (National Medal of Science recipient), James Quintiere (former Chief of NISTs Fire Science Division), Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (retired fighter pilot and Topgun Air Combat Instructor), and Sibel Edmonds (former FBI translator specializing in counter-terror, and gag-ordered whistleblower) is the corporate media’s rabid eagerness to confront, shame, condemn, and discredit celebrities and other citizens who have tried to draw public attention to the same issue. Marion Cotilliard, Martin and Charlie Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, Ed Asner, Willie Nelson, and former Governor Jesse Ventura among many others, have uniformly fallen under swift and venomous attack upon questioning the official theory of conspiracy, and for daring to utter the blasphemous assertion (recently echoed in sentiments expressed by Melissa Rossi in her recent Huffington Post article titled ‘Obama: Reopen The 911 Investigation’) that a new investigation is warranted given the innumerable inconsistencies, omissions, and outright distortions that permeate the aforementioned “official” reports.

Unfairly attacked based not upon the substance of the arguments they have advanced, but rather upon the basis of inane irrelevancies related to their private lives and public personas, they have been dismissed out of pocket as paranoid conspiracy fanatics, drug addicts, Nazis, and narcissists who should stick to playing their position as entertainers and leave the thinking up to the grown-ups when it comes to things they could not possibly understand. This is the classic ad hominem approach – to dismiss the source as a means to dismissing the message. Consequently, nothing of what they have actually said has been given its due diligence by our supposedly free press. Even though their questions and conclusions rest upon broad-shouldered analysis, expert testimony, diligent research, peer reviewed scientific studies (most notably that of Danish scientist Niels Harrit, whose findings on undetonated nano-thermite explosive residues found in WTC dust samples can be read online in The Open Chemical Physics Journal), and a preponderance of other damning forensic and circumstantial evidence, such prominent skeptics have been greeted with outright hostility and the most virulent brands of journalistic irresponsibility and intellectual dishonesty. This in fact is anti-journalism; the exact opposite of what one would expect to find in a society aspiring to exemplify the democratic ideal. If I didn’t know any better, I might think that such tactics were being employed just to shut these experts and celebrities up, and to keep the general public from paying them any mind. I might think that childish insults, character assassination, reductionist clichés, insipid platitudes, necessary illusions and emotionally potent oversimplifications had taken the place of journalistic integrity, objective scrutiny, and investigative rigor.

For instance, when Joe Scarborough covers a story about a 9/11 demonstrator being arrested during an appearance by Bill Clinton in Corpus Christi, and he and his MSNBC ‘Morning Joe’ co-hosts utter things like “Where is the taser? Tase him!” and “Led away in handcuffs…hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in Eastern Europe and never to be heard from again. I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists” it is quite difficult to grant them high scores for anything other than spewing fascistic rhetoric. Similarly only willful ignorance or a deliberate contempt for accuracy and logic can explain Glen Beck’s lumping together of Congressmen, law abiding citizens, highly decorated military personnel, prominent artists, and CIA veterans with violent radicals, in sweeping statements such as his ridiculous contention that 9/11 activists are “insane, dangerous anarchists” who comprise “”the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from.” It is an easily verifiable fact that in the thousands of 9/11 protests that have taken place since 2001, not a single individual has ever been arrested for violent conduct or convicted of a violent crime. It is also, shall we say, less than candid to assert that a movement whose implicit moral imperative arises from a desire to protect constitutional integrity could in any way be considered anarchistic in nature. Also, in one of the most irresponsible acts of journalism on record, Geraldo Rivera conflated the notoriously non-violent 9/11 activist community with terrorists in the following statement he made on FOX News Channel’s ‘FOX and Friends’ program while covering the 03/08 Times Square Bombing of a US Armed Forces recruiting station:

“I think that this bomber isn’t Al Qaeda, isn’t anything like that… He’s more like those ’9/11 was an inside job’ kind of guys… Protesting in a violent way, but in a violent way almost like the eco-terrorists… where they don’t intend to inflict casualties.”

The most egregious examples of this type of filth masquerading as responsible news commentary can perhaps be found emanating from the twisted and blusterous mouth of Bill O’Reilly. When the story broke that Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, was set to finance the distribution of ‘Loose Change 911’ (the most downloaded documentary in internet history) with Charlie Sheen set to narrate, O’Reilly (conceding his hypocrisy by admitting to not having seen the film or looked at the evidence) responded by unleashing a blitzkrieg of idiotic non-sequiturs, calculated ambiguities, and thinly veiled threats. After an erroneous and lame attempt to dismiss and discredit 9/11 Truth as “lunacy” from the “far-left fringe” (the movement transcends both liberality and conservatism alike, is a mainstream phenomenon, and its basic premise is in fact eminently sane), he compounded his ignorance by comparing 9/11-dissent to Nazi propaganda and holocaust denial. Like…dude…SERIOUSLY?! It is the very height of disingenuity to suggest that by demanding truth and accountability one is somehow offending and dishonoring the victims or their families, when the only way to honor them is by finding out the truth and holding the guilty parties responsible for their crimes. It would be more apt to compare Nazi propagandists and holocaust deniers to an administration that skewed intelligence about Iraq in order to fear-monger the American people into supporting the doctrine of preemption, while evading the initiation of any official inquiry into the most catastrophic day in our nations history, for 441 days. Either O’Reilly didn’t know or he didn’t care to know that Bill Doyle, founder of World Trade Center United Family Group (one of the largest 9/11 victims’ family organizations, comprised of over 7000 members from 2,573 families) believes that the government was complicit in the attacks. He has also publicly stated that at least half of his members harbor deep suspicions about what happened on 9/11 and why. Mr. Bill also saw fit to put Mark Cuban and Charlie Sheen on notice, so to speak. Sounding not altogether unlike a mafia don threatening to issue a hit, O’Reilly states “this is a warning to Mark Cuban, who is distributing that film in a few weeks. This is a warning to you Bud, okay, you pull that movie or I’m gonna be your worst nightmare, because this is gonna lead to death.” “We’re looking out for you, Charlie Sheen. Don’t do this. You’re not going to come back from it, if you do…”

As I said, examples abound. Such pathetically transparent diversionary tactics smack of cowardice and a reluctance to engage the subject of 9/11 based upon the facts at hand, and have no place in the realm of professional journalism (or info-tainment as the case may be). This must cease. If we are to have any hope of change as a nation, then we must recognize that turning the page on one of the darkest chapters in American governmental history without having properly read it, would be a grave and disastrous error. Regardless of how inconvenient, uncomfortable, or outlandish the implications may at first appear, this subject demands to be substantively addressed, free of spin or bias, for neither it nor its advocates are going to just fade away. Only a ship of fools would blatantly disregard the opinions of such highly qualified and erudite critics as those listed on sites like patriotsquestion911.com without closely examining their actual and factual claims. Now that Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy has officially introduced a proposal to investigate the Bush administration for war-crimes and the subversion of Constitutional Law, it stands to reason that 9/11 should also be soberly looked into once and for all. Given the swirling cloud of criminal accusations and populist rage regarding the legalization of torture, the illegal wiretapping of American civilians (including the intentional targeting of journalists and intellectuals according to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice) as well as other allegations of treasonous conduct, and taking into consideration the claims, statements, and research of critical thinkers across a wide spectrum of expertise who publicly doubt the government’s official explanation, it shouldn’t (although apparently it does) take a rocket scientist to see the disturbingly plausible connections between the inside job hypothesis and every Orwellian legislative and militaristic act for which 9/11 and its victims have been invoked as justification. Indeed the logic of context is fundamentally derailed by the prevailing ring-pass-not approach of investigating every area to which 9/11 is crucially relevant and intimately related, while treating the subject itself as sacrosanct. Clearly this should be part of any investigation into the alleged criminality of the previous administration; indeed it should be given priority. This above all else is President Obama’s litmus test of integrity and the quintessence of this nation’s hope for change. For if 9/11 was in fact an inside job, then it places all of the evils that flowed from and followed that event into vivid contextual focus. Bogus claims of executive privilege should offer no protection to those towards whom the preponderance of evidence points; chips fall where they may.

My own reasons for speaking out on this issue are fairly simple. I didn’t choose it; it chose me. Upon being hired to act the part of a post-9/11 NYC firefighter on Rescue Me, my research for the character led me to take a more objective look at what actually happened versus what we were told in the wake of the event. Nothing added up. No matter from which angle I approached 911, it invariably unraveled into contradictions and inconsistencies requiring the suspension of my logic and common sense in addition to several laws of physics. Slowly I came to the determination that I had no choice but to speak out, because (as Franco Rivera) I presume to represent the memories of the heroes who died that day, as well as the reality of the heroes who still mourn their loss. I work with these men; looking them daily in the eye. Therefore it is a citizen’s act of moral conscience and social responsibility, nothing more. To know or even to merely suspect, and yet remain silent, would be anti-American, unpatriotic, and tantamount to betrayal. Therefore this is no stunt on my part to gain publicity or to garner attention for myself by appearing edgy and controversial. Believe it or not, I rather covet my relative anonymity as a quasi-celebrity/working actor. I would much rather direct media and public attention to those most credible dissenting experts who have looked at and analyzed the facts (circumstantial as well as forensic) and found that they do not fit the government’s theory of conspiracy. People like Professor Emeritus David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage (AIA), Physics Professor Steven Jones (co-author of the above mentioned peer reviewed study proving that explosives were in fact used to implode the WTC towers as well as WTC 7), William Christison (former CIA Station Chief and Director of Regional and Political Analysis), Ray McGovern (27 year CIA vet., and former Chair of National Intelligence Estimates), Coleen Rowley (former F.B.I. Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel), and Sibel Edmonds must be given fair and open forums on mainstream media platforms, as well as access to those with the power and responsibility to reopen the 9/11 investigation; or rather, to finally conduct one as the case may be. Until that happens we will not be silent. We will not go away. We will not submit.

[Len Colby]

I skimmed through that, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of people bothered even to do that; I saw nothing there to do with 6 WTC. One thing you fail to realize is that each time you make an off topic post you draw attention to, rather than distract from, your lack of evidence relevant to the subject of the thread.

[Steven Gaal]

One thing you fail to realize is that each time you dont respond to a post you draw attention to, rather than distract from, your lack of evidence relevant to the subject of demolition that occured on 911.

_{POPULAR MECHANICS CONSIDERED A JOKE BY SOME}

_{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

_{Popular Mechanics repeats NIST’s claim that the failure of column 79 caused the collapse of the entire building, even though the scientific evidence contradicts this theory.}

• _{NIST applied the 4 hours of heating in 1–½ seconds over the entire northeast part of the floor, again creating an unrealistic situation and result:}
  
  • _{Ramping up the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, leveling off at temperatures of 600°C for the beams and 500°C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. ^ix}
    

• _{NIST heated the steel beams, but not the concrete slab above, and then claimed that the temperature differential caused the shear studs to fail. In reality, the fire would have heated them both nearly uniformly – without significant differential expansion.}
  
  _{Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel. Leaving this expansion out of the calculations in order to show failure of the shear studs is}
  _{both unscientific and fraudulent.}
  
  
  • _{No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab. ^x}
    

_{####################################}

_{Benard Kerick taken to woodshed along with 911 myths}

[Len Colby]

Yet another post that has NOTHING to do with the demolition of 6 WTC, you still fail to realize is that each time you make an off topic post you draw attention to, rather than distract from, your lack of evidence relevant to the subject of the thread. As for the boob on the video he failed to provide evidence in support of his claims.