Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

Craig - could you explain what you mean - without the sarcasm? Especially the incidence / reflection bit?

Thank you.

[Dave Greer]

Bill Biggart (rest his soul) took two images at this location a few seconds apart. The second image is zoomed in but from approximately the same location. The highest resolution images I've been able to source are both at 650x448 pixels. Links are below:-

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart05.htm

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart06.htm

You can verify that BIll was very likely stood in the same place in both these photos by aligning foreground features with background buildings. The second photo is obviously slightly zoomed in.

The first thing to say about these two photos is that they are both taken DURING the collapse of the south tower. This is easily verified by debris which is still falling. Given the time of the collapse of the second tower is estimated at anywhere between 10 and 15 seconds, it's likely that the time between these two photos is going to be somewhat less than 15 seconds.

The next image shows a crop of each photo, zoomed in on the same part of WTC6, and scalled to the same size.

In the first image on the LHS, there are two windows visible just above the fire engine which appear to be lighter than the surrounding windows. They are highlighted in yellow in the image below.

Comparing between the two images, if this is due to flames behind the windows, then in the space of a maximum of 15 seconds, the flames in those two windwso, have spread along the entire section of that part of the building, burnt through to the next storey where they appear to be brighter (circled in red), and also burnt through to the next level. That's a fire that has burnt through two concrete floors in less than 15 seconds. Not only that, but it doesn't appear to have produced any smoke. While this fire was raging, the fire circled in green has barely changed.

If it's not fire, what is causing the change in colour of the windows? Another possibilty is reflection in the window. Since the photographs were taken from the same place, the windows where we see a noticeable change in colour are unlikely to be caused by reflections of buildings across the street. I think it's more likely to be reflections off the large, light coloured cloud that isn't visible in the first photograph, but is clearly visible in front of the North Bridge in the second photograph. On top of that, the colour of the reflection does not resemble the colour of flames seen in several other of Bill's photos taken with the same camera, but more closely resembles the tone of the dust cloud. This last image shows the approximate part of the cloud that I suspect is causing the reflection in the window.

[Kevin M. West]

Shouldn't those last 2 posts be in another thread? This one was supposed to be about Jack's new discovery.

And yours is?! It is as obscure as your photo...or maybe not...maybe both indicative of something.....

My old avatar was indicative only of my love of diving, here's a new one so you can see my face. Unfortunately unlike my old one, it tells you nothing about me except that I'm a white guy. Maybe you can explain how seeing my face is relevant to anything we've discussed here.

Now, back to the matter at hand, if you want to say something completely unrelated to the subject of the thread, it's best to start a new thread, not derail an existing one. It's basic forum etiquette, and as such, this will be my last response to you in this thread unless you say something on topic.

[Craig Lamson]

Shouldn't those last 2 posts be in another thread? This one was supposed to be about Jack's new discovery.

And yours is?! It is as obscure as your photo...or maybe not...maybe both indicative of something.....

My old avatar was indicative only of my love of diving, here's a new one so you can see my face. Unfortunately unlike my old one, it tells you nothing about me except that I'm a white guy. Maybe you can explain how seeing my face is relevant to anything we've discussed here.

Now, back to the matter at hand, if you want to say something completely unrelated to the subject of the thread, it's best to start a new thread, not derail an existing one. It's basic forum etiquette, and as such, this will be my last response to you in this thread unless you say something on topic.

Lemkin does not seem to have a problem with member's avatar:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=2206

I wonder what that might be indicative of?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig - could you explain what you mean - without the sarcasm? Especially the incidence / reflection bit?

Thank you.

Sorry Evan, but when dealing with claims that are this absurd, sarcasm is REQUIRED.

First as has been shown in another thread, ALL of the evidence supports that building six was intact until one of the towers fell on it. That some are still trying to support a different version seems quite silly.

Second we have a self-prononced "photo expert" showing us two views of the same building from very different camera angles and then claiming they both should look the same. What poppycock! In 9/11 image (and its sister image) the camera isonly slighty pointed upward, meaning that the reflections in the windows are coming from the building on the other side of the street. The angle of incidence equals angle of reflectance principal demands this to be true.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys.../optics/lr.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)

Thus we have windows that show us what is across and down the street form WTC 6. Notice that the building mimic on that side of the streeet mimic what is seen in the windows of building 6.

Third this 'photo expert' shows us an image of buliding 6 taken with a very upward camera angle. As such the angle of incidence principal demads that what is reflected in the windows is the sky ( and a small part of a building).

There is the reason that the widows lok different between the two shots, not because they are damaged in one and undamaged in the other, but rather that they are reflecting two different scenes.

And finally there is the problem of exposure values changing the "look' of the window surrounds between the two shots.

Lets start with 9/11 shot. The side we see of building 6 in in shadow, and camera exposure is set for full sun. We can see this by looking at the building on the other side of the street...full sun and proper exposure. This accounts for the window surrounds in the 9/11 shot being much darker than the pre 9-11 shot which is properly exposed for the building. The window surrounds are party reflective wioch also accounts for some of the difference, based on what they are reflecting.

So how much darker should the window frames of the 9/11 shot be compared to a proper exposure in full sunlight?

Lets check that old standard the the "Sunny 16 rule" and see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

The difference between a full sun exposure and and a full shade exposure is three stops. That means the side of the building in the 9/11 shot is three stops underexposed. To put that in laymens terms it means that the amount of light reflecting off of that side of building 6 is the daylihgt cut in half, and then cut in half again and then cut in half again. Thats the biggest reason they window surrounds look dark.

And that brings us to the massive ignorance of the sunject matter by the original poster...the "photo expert"... sadly parroted by others (who claims to be a scientist) with complete disregard to the basic science involved.

[Len Colby]

As it turns out my speculation was justified and indeed “the “fires” and “broken widows” [are] very much 'in the eye of the beholder'”. Jack “discovered” the photo of course because I posted here to show the opposite that the building seemed to be intact up till the collapse of the South Tower.

I was going to point out the different reflections in the two different Bill Biggarts frames but Dave beet me to it. Though I hadn’t spotted it his analysis that the white reflections are likely from the WTC 2 dust cloud is “spot on”.

What Jack described as “a yellow glow that may be fire inside” is almost certainly reflections of WFC 3 the building across the street. In the image below I cropped images of both buildings from the Biggart image blew them up 3X and pasted them side by side they are otherwise unaltered. Note that in some of the “yellow glow” windows there are black rectangles (inside the yellow ovals) that correlate with the other building’s windows . The “glow” does appear darker that WFC 3 in the image but since we are looking at a reflections in black tinted glass that would be expected the different angle of view MIGHT also be a factor. It is interesting to note that the reflections vary from window to window in Jack’s pre 9/11 image as well.

I have no idea what Jack was referring to when he said drapes can be seen hanging out broken windows. The visible widows all appear intact. He might be referring to glare on the wider dividers that separate every group of five widow rows.

His declaration that this image is the only one know “of WFC 6 during the events of 9/11” is completely false as Jack should well have been aware As David pointed out the is another one by the same photographer on the same site. Before Jack posted his study Peter posted another, I posted two other photos and a video* Evan posted yet another*. Here’s one more, which also shows a quite obviously damaged and burning 7 WTC in the background. This photo was taken AFTER the collapse of the NORTH Tower.

Jack claims there are “stories/photos of explosions in building 6” but all the photos are ambiguous at best and I’ve only seen two such stories:

- An unnamed person who was quoted by disgraced “journalist” Chris Bollyn who was fired by his only employer the ‘American Free Press’, a neo-Nazi/inside job publication, for filing false stories.

An EMT who took shelter in the lobby of WTC 6 during the collapse of the South Tower who claims she heard popping sounds she thinks were explosive before security guards in the building told her to leave. This account actually contradicts Jack because this was almos an hour AFTER he claims the building had been cratered down to its subbasement level by massive explosions.(*) Note that the same EMT also claimed she saw a plane explode over New Jersey after leaving WTC 6 (*)which seems to indicate she was very freaked out.

Lets not forget that on the other thread where we discussed Building 6 Evan provided a link to a statement by one of the buildings elevator operators who left after the collapse of the South Tower (*).

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119640 there is another link to the video in Evan’s post, the EMT mentioned the explosions in an interview with a truther site which Peter just provide a link to.

[Craig Lamson]

There were lots of reports of bombs...a very small sample here:

Thursday, November 10, 2005

More Proof 911 Inside Job - Witnesses To WTC Explosives

There are numerous eyewitness statements of bombs in the World Trade Centers on 9/11, such as the following:

A reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down.

The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video); or high-quality audio here

NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings

A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

An MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

A NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)

The Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commisioner spoke with independently verified the flashes (see possible explanation below)(when, as here, there are no page numbers in the original firefighter transcript, you can locate the text using the "find" function in your web browser)

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

Another firefigther stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (page 4; original is .pdf; Google's webpage version is here)

A paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was" (page 9)

A police officer noted "People were saying, 'There’s another one and another one.' I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions . . ." (page 61, which is page 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

Firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."

Dan Rather said that collapse was "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when] a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" (CNN's Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments)

A British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion' "

One ABC reporter stated it looked like a controlled demolition; another ABC reporter stated "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"

A reporter for WNYC radio said "The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down"(page 203 of Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11)

A Wall Street Journal reporter said "I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, "My God, they’re going to bring the building down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions" (page 87)

A facilities manager in the north tower "was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons"

You can view more eyewitness source materials at www.911Proof.com.

The 9/11 Commission Report did not even once mention the word "explosion" or "bomb". The mainstream media hasn't touched the evidence of bombs in the trade center. Democratic and republican politicans smear anyone who even raises the issue as a conspiracy nut. Isn't it time that we faced the elephant in the living room? Can our democracy survive if we don't?

posted by George Washington at 2:05 AM

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...tnesses-to.html

....and look what they did to blow up this building in the end..! not from falling debris! A hole like that is from a high-explosive charge or Superman [copyright]. The scenario was complex and seems to have involved some small explostions and fires at about the time of the plane crashes to [perhaps get people out] and cause general chaos so fewer would see the next steps...when they brought down the towers [3] and puvlarized them [2] and exploded others.

How off topic can you get? The discussion centers on building six and here we have lemkin posting nothing that can be connected to building six. Can someone please define the word trolling for us PLEASE?

It appears to be yet another attempt to deflect the discussion AWAY from his and Whites failed position on the windows of building 6.

[Jack White]

The 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund: cui bono?

By Jerry Mazza

Online Journal Associate Editor

Jun 22, 2007

Thursday, June 14 -- I’m taking notes in Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s spacious courtroom atop the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in New York. This as lawyers

from United Air Lines, American Airlines, Boeing Corporation, the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey, World Trade Center Properties, et al, make a motion for a determination of applicable law

and for dismissal of all punitive damage claims as well as certain government discovery in the 9/11

damage suits.

The fleet of high-priced lawyers fills half the paneled courtroom. A packed gallery fills the other half.

Among the corporate legal fleet are a smaller number of lawyers for the remaining plaintiffs who did not

take the 9/11 Victim Compensation money. One of plaintiffs’ lawyers, Greg Joseph, is noted to say,

“Any trial is a good trial.”

The corporate lawyers parry and thrust in legalese with Judge Hellerstein. They seem to admire their

own wit, deferring to his, his quips, assertions of power, interruptions and anecdotes. A certain sense of

gravity seems lacking as the sad gray sky fills the huge windows, just a handful of blocks from the

perished towers and their lost lives, which is what this is supposed to be about if I’m not mistaken.

Eligibility for the Victim Compensation Fund required victims’ “physical harm or death” as a result of

one of the crashes, or being the personal representative of a deceased victim. But the hook, the big quid

pro quo is the waiver of a claimant’s right to file suit if he or she filed for fund money. The moment he

or she submitted an application for fund money, he or she could forget about a suit against the airlines

or the government.

Also, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 was the last part of the three-part Air

Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001 [ATSA) issued at President Bush’s order.

It was issued only 12 days after the tragedy and most probably not closely read by most members of

Congress who passed it.

Part one was a $10 billion dollar handout in federal credit instruments to air carriers. Part two was an

additional $5 billion boost to compensate air carriers for direct losses, either from being grounded

and/or incremental losses beginning September 11, 2001, ending December 31, 2001, as a direct result

of the attacks.

Thus the airlines received a $15 billion subsidy to keep them from going under. There was just one

stipulation calling for limiting pay raises to employees or officers whose total compensation exceeds

$300,000.

If victims or survivors decided not to take the money, the law said they could “bring in U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of New York an exclusive cause of action for damages based upon the

substantive law, including choice of law principles, of the State in which the crash occurred unless such

law was inconsistent with or preempted by Federal law.” In plain English, it meant they could file a

lawsuit for damages right in this courthouse.

The man to evaluate all appeals was the fund’s special master, Kenneth R. Feinberg. He was appointed

by then Attorney General John Ashcroft on November 26, 2001. In his Final Report of Fund activities,

Feinberg said with no due modesty, “In my view, the Fund was an unqualified success: 97 percent of

the families of deceased victims who might otherwise have pursued lawsuits for years have received

compensation through the Fund. . . .

“In total, the Fund distributed over $7.049 billion to survivors of 2,880 persons killed in the September

11 attacks and to 2,680 individuals who were injured in the attacks or in the rescue efforts conducted

thereafter. The average award for families of victims killed in the attacks exceeded $2 million. The

average award for injured victims was nearly $400,000. . . .”

Bottom line: the airlines received over twice as much as 9/11 victims and their families.

As Truthout.org reported on December 23, 2003, the actual cut-off date of the two-year application

period, “as many as 73 families see the process of U.S. government compensation as an attempt to

protect those who should be held accountable for what they believe was mass murder. They ignored a

midnight deadline last night, their last chance to apply for government cash. And today, they begin a new

stage in an arduous odyssey and will sue their government, airlines and state and local authorities.”

Think of the consequences of an open trial of plaintiffs against the airlines and/or government. Think of

the discovery, of all the facts which could used to prove those thousands of 9/11 deaths were murders,

conceivably by home bodies with foreign allies. The cost would be the heads of the big kahunas of our

government and their associates. Thus the $7.049 billion in Victim Fund’s payout was a small price to

pay for the silence it produced.

Amazingly, after five and a half years, not one single victim’s case from 9/11 has even been heard in a

court of law -- in spite of the fact that the US is known as a litigious society with an abundance of

aggressive lawyers. Many thought the relatives of the 9/11 victims would go for justice and

compensation in the courts. Not so, particularly under the pressure of the VCF.

As of March 20, Christopher Bollyn reported that Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who has overseen and

handled all 9/11 victim lawsuits, said “that he wants the 58 or so remaining cases resolved as quickly as

possible.” Bollyn added, “What this means is that he wants weary plaintiffs to negotiate with Sheila L.

Birnbaum, the ‘special mediator’ for the court, and accept the money offered to them. This way, nearly

all of the cases were resolved through out of court settlements.”

In fact, the most notable would-be litigant, Ellen Mariani, was harassed from the date of filing her

original RICO suit on December 20, 2001, (via her then attorney, Phil Berg) against the Bush

administration. For speaking out tirelessly about the need for a trial, for an investigation and discovery

of the real facts, Mrs. Mariani was harassed until she was eventually replaced as administrator of her

husband’s estate.

With the help of the Greenberg-Traurig law firm, the same firm that served Bush in the 2000 election,

Mrs. Mariani’s step-daughter Lauren Peters was put in Ellen Mariani’s place as the estate

administrator. Lauren Peters’ name also replaced Ellen Mariani’s on the latter’s landmark suit against

United Airlines. A New York federal court UAL lawsuit had been cleverly waiting in the wings to

replace Mrs. Mariani’s ground breaking lawsuit. Today, Mrs. Mariani remains a co-beneficiary of the

yet-to-be-paid fund, a widow living on Social Security and under a gag order, which the government has

violated with continual harassment.

Israeli connections to the events

Let us begin with Judge Hellerstein, who has long-standing Zionist connections and close family ties to

the state of Israel. His wife, as Christopher Bollyn points out, “is a former senior vice president and

current treasurer of a New York-based organization called AMIT. AMIT promotes Jewish immigration

to Israel and stands for Americans for Israel and Torah. AMIT’s motto is “Building Israel -- One Child

at a Time.”

Bollyn also points out that “all of the relatives’ wrongful death lawsuits, that is criminal cases against

American Airlines or United Airlines or any of the foreign-owned airport security companies, namely

Argenbright Security (British), Globe Aviation Services Corp. (Swedish), and Huntleigh USA Corp.

(Israeli) have been handled by Hellerstein. In fact, all of the relatives’ wrongful death lawsuits, criminal

cases against the airlines and their security companies were consolidated by the presiding judge into a

negligence lawsuit, which, as a civil case, is much less likely to be argued or investigated in an open trial

with a jury.

“In the case of at least one of these security defendants, Huntleigh USA, there would seem to be a

serious conflict of interest for the judge [be]cause the airline security company who is responsible for

the shocking security lapses at both the Boston and Newark airports on 9/11 is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of the Israeli company (ICTS), headed by Israelis with clear ties to Israel’s military

intelligence agency, the Mossad.

“Menachem Atzmon, who was convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business

partner Ezra Harel, covered management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their

company, ICTS, bought Huntleigh USA in 1999.”

UAL Flight 175 and AA II, which were the hit-planes for Towers One and Two, originated in Boston.

UAL 93, the airliner that supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from Newark airport.

“Some victim’s families brought suits against Huntleigh, claiming the Israeli-owned airport security

firm had been grossly negligent on 9/11. While these relatives have a right to discovery and to know

what Huntleigh did or didn’t do to protect their loved ones on 9/11, Huntleigh was granted complete

congressional protection in 2002 and will not be called to account for its actions on 9/11 in any US

court.

“On July 26, 2002, the US House of Representatives passed the Homeland Security Bill and slipped in

a last minute provision for complete corporate immunity for the three foreign-owned security

companies. Likewise, the Senate voted to shield the three security companies from corporate

responsibility on November 19, 2002. These congressional votes prevent any legal investigation to

discovery into the security failures of these foreign companies on 9/11.”

Next, “Special Master Kenneth Feinberg’s legal firm is listed as one of the top ten supporters of the

Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies for 2004-2005. The Institute is an Israel-based Zionist

organization that supports the construction of the illegal wall of separation across Palestine.”

Feinberg was appointed by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, a dedicated conservative

Christian-cum-Zionist sympathizer, backing groups such as Stand for Israel. Most notably, Ashcroft

now runs a lobbying firm, whose most stellar client is Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), Israel’s major

military aerospace company. It hired the former US attorney general to help secure US government

approval to sell an Israeli weapons system to the South Korean Air Force. They hired Ashcroft to raise

their chances against an American-made system from Chicago-based Boeing Company.

Ironically, Ashcroft was born in Chicago. When he headed the Justice Department, his dual-citizenship

Israeli-American assistant was Michael Chertoff, who directed the FBI non-investigation of the events of

9/11. Chertoff is now secretary of Homeland Security.

Sheila L. Birnbaum, the special mediator for Hellerstein, is a partner in Skadden Arps, one of the leading

corporate law firms with business ties to Israel. Skadden Arps is one of the legal advisers to Israeli

companies doing business in and raising capital outside of Israel. It offers bi-lingual English/Hebrew

personnel as well.

Courtroom coda

After lunch, I return to the polished voices of United Airlines, American, Boeing, Hellerstein, et al. They

continue the dialogue to avoid culpability via litigation from plaintiffs. The jocularity rises. Yet at some

point, the lawyer for the plaintiffs stands to speak. In essence, he reminds Judge Hellerstein and the

room that Congress created the Victims Compensation Fund, and it asked victims families to relinquish

the right of bringing suit against the airlines or government in return for compensation. The lawyer

wondered why Congress would ask that of the families, and if that was just? Of if it was an unfair

exchange? The dialogue at this point took on a more serious, even intense tone. Reality had entered the

discussion. So much so, that at some point two of the court clerks asked to speak with Judge Hellerstein

in his chambers.

When Judge Hellerstein returned, he said that the plaintiffs would have a trial, but it would have to be

bifurcated, that is, split in half. The liability cases would be conducted with the airlines. And only the

damages cases would be heard in court. At that point, the notion that the cases would have to be

“sanitized” passed loudly from one lawyer’s lips to another’s to the judge. Take from that what

meanings or “evidence” you will.

Hellerstein added that he would name three cases for the remaining damages cases on Monday, June 25,

to be “tried.” The judge reserved to himself the right to decide which cases to try. He said, “I want to

settle as many cases as I can as soon as I can. That is my job.”

And that, at the end of the day, was the bottom line. Would it be a victory for some or more of the same

for all? We’ll know soon enough. But don’t expect too many surprises in the continuation of this

surreal if not tragic series of events.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Special thanks to Christopher Bollyn for his articles and research,

quoted or paraphrased.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Email Online Journal Editor

[Jack White]

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means

by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

 

[Len Colby]

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Watson typically mischaracterized the letter ignoring the context of the comments. No where did they “implicitly acknowledg[e] that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.”

Before the sentence he quoted the author stated:

and later in the latter said

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

In other words he wasn’t saying they were “unable to provide a full explanation the total collapse” in the sense that was inexplicable (i.e. it violated the laws of physics) but rather a detailed account (“full explanation”) would not have been possible based on the computing capacity available to them. Several scientific studies had already concluded that once the collapses started the resistive capacity of the building would have been insufficient to stop it. Northwestern University structural engineering professors Bazant and Zhou concluded in a peer reviewed article in the March 2002 issue of the prestigious Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

“Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even though it is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multifloor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube…”

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf

NIST came to a different conclusion about collapse initiation but the principle still applies, “The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part…applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even though it is not heated”

Other engineers came to similar conclusions:

“[MIT civil and environmental engineering professor] Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University…As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. The dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion becomes unstoppable.

Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings¿ design loads by at least an order of magnitude.”

Another MIT civil engineering professor concluded:

"After that, the upper portions of the tower are shown disintegrating, with "a dynamic effect and amplification process" following that led to a progressive collapse, "a kind of pancaking or deck of cards effect", down to ground zero, Buyukozturk stated."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...r=5&catID=4

Jerome Connor yet another professor of civil and environmental engineering at M.I.T reached a similar conclusion the local collapses “started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself” (ibid pg 4)

And as recently noted a Cambridge University lecturer (professor) just had a paper accepted for publication in the same peer reviewed journal as Bazant and Zhou’s paper concluded that total collapse was inevitable.

AFAIK so far only 2 or 3 structural engineers of questionable qualification regard steel framed buildings have challenged the notion global collapse was an expected outcome once local collapses happened. None of them have released papers showing errors in the conclusions of their colleagues who reached the opposite conclusion.

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

If this really violates “the accepted laws of physics” why have so few scientists questioned it? And as repeatedly pointed out the towers didn’t collapse “at freefall speed”. Watson would have a hard time explained how building implosions work because explosives are only placed on a few floors and gravity does the rest. Unlike the collapses of the towers where significant quantities of debris were projected away from the buildings in most demolitions (virtually) all the debris falls into the buldings’ footprints into what he thinks is “the path of most resistance”.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

Untrue and misleading. They tested samples whose locations in the building could be determined to validate their models. It was impossible to determine the location of most truss sections; they concluded that weakening of a small number of trusses (a fraction of a percent of the total) failed due to weakening. Additionally the method they used “to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members” was based on “observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion” thus samples without paint we untestable.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to …”

Barrett who is a part time professor of folklore and religion makes so many errors in his description of NIST’s conclusions it’s apperent he never read the report.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

As pointed out elsewhere on this forum Quintiere objections are technical he rejects CD theories. He also seems to have misunderstood NIST’

[Jack White]

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a

"Cover-up" Sept. 23, 2007 Link to full article

Summary: Seven CIA veterans denounce the official account of 9/11 as: "a joke", "a coverup", "a

monstrous series of lies", "a pretext for war", "not a serious piece of analysis", riddled with "serious

shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws."

These individuals played significant roles in our national security apparatus from the 1960's through the

1990's. In particular, Raymond McGovern, William Christison, and Melvin Goodman, served at the highest

levels of the CIA and each for more than 25 years. We relied on them for decades to collect information and

provide analysis that were critically important to America's national security, during a time that America

faced far more real and much more serious external threats than anything we face today. We must not now

ignore their stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.

Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of

9/11 Sept. 5, 2007 Link to full article

Summary: Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the

Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural

Resources for the National Governors Association, called for a new investigation of 9/11, saying "First, let

the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other

questions."

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11 Sept. 5, 2007

Link to full article

Summary: Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, questioned the official

account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one

was told, there is very little to believe in the official story."

National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Explanation a "Fraud"

Aug. 27, 2007 Link to full article

Summary: Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and world renowned

scientist, characterized the official account of 9/11 as "a fraud" and called for a new investigation, "I suggest

that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be

dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center

Investigation Aug. 21, 2007 Link to full article

Summary: James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent

review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer

review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled

should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both

structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is

questionable."

Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement – Prominent Engineer

Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 July 16, 2007 Link to full article

Summary: J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and

former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven

Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought

down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the

rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."

[Steve Ulman]

Guess Bill Clinton was in on the planning as well.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c68_1193347304&p=1

[Craig Lamson]

One thing grows very clear: more and more persons of all walks of life and including scientists, policy makers, intelligence analysts, former military, pilots, engineers, architects and demolition experts, as well as specialists in other fields are flocking in growing numbers to some porton of the 911 truth movements [as they are not a monolith - and vary in their views/focus - however, all agree the official version not only fails to explain the events, but is frankly impossible to explain most all parts of it]. Sadly, the Congress is way behind the People and not calling for a new investigation [or should I say a first investigation, rather than a pro forma cover-up]. So, it is left to the Citizen Activists, as we did so many times before, to do what the Government should, but won't........

The Government, as presently constituted [and here I mean far beyond the current Adm

nistration] is not the solution...it IS the PROBLEM! This is hard for many to absorb, as it goes against the mythology about America.

You know the old saying, and it it rings very true to the half-truthers....

There is a sucker born every minute!

[Charles Drago]

If one can derive satisfaction from bearing witness to Bush's willing executioners, it comes with the realization that they will reap what they sow.

There's a sucker born again every minute.

[Craig Lamson]

If one can derive satisfaction from bearing witness to Bush's willing executioners, it comes with the realization that they will reap what they sow.

There's a sucker born again every minute.

If one continues to bear witness to disinformation such as that offered by the 9/11 "truth" movement, it must come with the damning truth they they are willing participants in the biggest lie of the century.

There have always been suckers willing to fall for anything as long as it fits neatly into their warped worldview.