Reader comments
Tad Walch: 9/11 theorist not curtailing his research
419 comments | Read story
Dr. Steven E. Jones | 8:05 a.m. May 8, 2008
AAron H: "Dr. Jones, since it appears you are watching, in the article
being discussed here,(1) you focus almost exclusively on one sentence from NISTs
rejection of your request for correction. One which by itself, out of context,
appears to imply that NIST can't explain the towers collapse. Yet further
reading of the letter itself shows that NIST does know what initiated the
collapse.
(2)In your interview with Tad Walch, you also left out that steel loses nearly all its structural strength at 1000 degrees celcius."
(1) No, that NIST admits it is unable to explain the TOTAL collapse is one point out of Fourteen Points (point #13 in the paper) and stands as a valid point, as addressed in the peer-reviewed paper. NIST does try to explain what initiated the beginning of the collapse, as also discussed in the paper, but that does NOT explain the TOTAL and RAPID collapses.
(2) The point about the maximum temperatures in the WTC fires being unable to melt steel relates to the issue of the iron-rich microspheres observed in the WTC dust -- something was so very hot that iron (plus aluminum) melted! See our paper in the Journalof911Studies.com.
(2)In your interview with Tad Walch, you also left out that steel loses nearly all its structural strength at 1000 degrees celcius."
(1) No, that NIST admits it is unable to explain the TOTAL collapse is one point out of Fourteen Points (point #13 in the paper) and stands as a valid point, as addressed in the peer-reviewed paper. NIST does try to explain what initiated the beginning of the collapse, as also discussed in the paper, but that does NOT explain the TOTAL and RAPID collapses.
(2) The point about the maximum temperatures in the WTC fires being unable to melt steel relates to the issue of the iron-rich microspheres observed in the WTC dust -- something was so very hot that iron (plus aluminum) melted! See our paper in the Journalof911Studies.com.
Dr. Steven E. Jones | 8:14 a.m. May 8, 2008
Tad Walch did a good job I thought putting the lack of sufficiently high temps
in the WTC fires in proper context -- not hot enough to generate the
iron-aluminum-rich spheres observed! That is the issue here, how to explain the
presence of abundant iron-aluminum containing spheres which imply molten
iron-aluminum mixtures, sprayed into the air -- Just such iron-aluminum-rich
spheres are seen in experiments where thermite is ignited (and used to attack
steel).
For more information and experimental results, see our paper in the January issue of the Journalof911Studies.com, titled: "Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction" by
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe
Note that these spheres are NOT melted structural steel, because of the presence of significant aluminum and silicon and potassium. But this IS the chemical fingerprint for thermite microspheres (Fe, Al, Si, O, K -- unlike steel!)
Is that too hard to understand? The residue of thermite is found in the WTC dust, with more experiments now in hand to demonstrate this compellingly. Papers being written on these tests and experiments for publication!
For more information and experimental results, see our paper in the January issue of the Journalof911Studies.com, titled: "Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction" by
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe
Note that these spheres are NOT melted structural steel, because of the presence of significant aluminum and silicon and potassium. But this IS the chemical fingerprint for thermite microspheres (Fe, Al, Si, O, K -- unlike steel!)
Is that too hard to understand? The residue of thermite is found in the WTC dust, with more experiments now in hand to demonstrate this compellingly. Papers being written on these tests and experiments for publication!
Comments continue below
Loss of Freedom | 12:27 p.m. May 8, 2008
13 angry men wrote, "The problem with most conspiracy theorists is their
starting point is usually wrong..."
__________________
You're right that most people do not understand the true starting point for conspiracies. If they did, it would be a lot easier to make sense of what is really going on. Many theories are shallow attempts to explain events on a simple level because the bigger picture is not well understood.
Conspiratorial efforts are intentionally fractured and loosely coordinated in what seem to be unrelated activities to make it difficult to put the pieces together. Having an understanding of the larger context is critical to understanding why these events occur.
I would also add to your statement that the problem with most conspirators is their starting point is usually wrong. They think they can ultimately triumph and rule over the people, but they lack the understanding of and appreciation for our true starting point (and their ending point if they persist).
In the end, a lot more than 13 angry men will wish they would have worked to free people instead of trying to enslave them.
Google "History of Rothschilds" and analyze the timeline for a plausible theoretical starting point.
__________________
You're right that most people do not understand the true starting point for conspiracies. If they did, it would be a lot easier to make sense of what is really going on. Many theories are shallow attempts to explain events on a simple level because the bigger picture is not well understood.
Conspiratorial efforts are intentionally fractured and loosely coordinated in what seem to be unrelated activities to make it difficult to put the pieces together. Having an understanding of the larger context is critical to understanding why these events occur.
I would also add to your statement that the problem with most conspirators is their starting point is usually wrong. They think they can ultimately triumph and rule over the people, but they lack the understanding of and appreciation for our true starting point (and their ending point if they persist).
In the end, a lot more than 13 angry men will wish they would have worked to free people instead of trying to enslave them.
Google "History of Rothschilds" and analyze the timeline for a plausible theoretical starting point.
Falco98 | 2:54 p.m. May 8, 2008
"Logician" replied again:
"Have you not seen pix and video of streams of molten Steel flowing from the corner of a Tower before it collapsed? Go find and learn. Don't say it is Aluminium from the plane, melted by kerosene. Wrong colour ... visit any foundry."
What does visiting a foundry have to do with anything? You claim that iron / steel is the only metallic substance that can become red-hot and molten at proper temperatures? do you also mean to claim that a tiny trickle of apparently molten metal photographed coming out of one spot on one of the towers directly implies planted explosives? How exactly do explosives, PRE-COLLAPSE, have anything to do with a trickle of molten metal? How have you shown (other than your ridiculous "visit any foundry" argument from incredulity) that it was not aluminum, or some other metal with a lower melting point?
How do you mean this to implicate explosives, exactly? And who planted them, and when? You can play word games dodging the burden of proof until we're on the hundredth page of comments, but that doesn't mean you've actually shown anything.
"Have you not seen pix and video of streams of molten Steel flowing from the corner of a Tower before it collapsed? Go find and learn. Don't say it is Aluminium from the plane, melted by kerosene. Wrong colour ... visit any foundry."
What does visiting a foundry have to do with anything? You claim that iron / steel is the only metallic substance that can become red-hot and molten at proper temperatures? do you also mean to claim that a tiny trickle of apparently molten metal photographed coming out of one spot on one of the towers directly implies planted explosives? How exactly do explosives, PRE-COLLAPSE, have anything to do with a trickle of molten metal? How have you shown (other than your ridiculous "visit any foundry" argument from incredulity) that it was not aluminum, or some other metal with a lower melting point?
How do you mean this to implicate explosives, exactly? And who planted them, and when? You can play word games dodging the burden of proof until we're on the hundredth page of comments, but that doesn't mean you've actually shown anything.
Falco98 | 3:06 p.m. May 8, 2008
Dr. Steven Jones:
You have not yet explained (as I'm sure you already know, thanks to the SLC guys) how thermite may have found itself in the WTC; nor how it is to have survived fires from airplane impacts. You have also not explained how it is suddenly a demolitions material, when even a minimal amount of research will demonstrate that it is not, nor has ever been used in demolitions, and that so-called "thermite shape charges" do not exist and have been shown (by the truthers themselves) to not really actually do anything.
You have also not satisfied your scientific duty to show how the presence of iron-rich spherules or sulphur are unique to the use of thermite/thermate, as opposed to other sources (sulphur from drywall or office supplies, iron spherules from contamination of the evidence or from the fact that your samples were collected after welding work done during cleanup).
You also continually demonstrate self-willing denial that, quite simply (and I believe you know) the fires were sufficient to initiate collapse, and you dodge by using the strawman that "it still doesn't explain the iron spheres" -- Guess what, it doesn't need to. Collapse is what's important here.
You have not yet explained (as I'm sure you already know, thanks to the SLC guys) how thermite may have found itself in the WTC; nor how it is to have survived fires from airplane impacts. You have also not explained how it is suddenly a demolitions material, when even a minimal amount of research will demonstrate that it is not, nor has ever been used in demolitions, and that so-called "thermite shape charges" do not exist and have been shown (by the truthers themselves) to not really actually do anything.
You have also not satisfied your scientific duty to show how the presence of iron-rich spherules or sulphur are unique to the use of thermite/thermate, as opposed to other sources (sulphur from drywall or office supplies, iron spherules from contamination of the evidence or from the fact that your samples were collected after welding work done during cleanup).
You also continually demonstrate self-willing denial that, quite simply (and I believe you know) the fires were sufficient to initiate collapse, and you dodge by using the strawman that "it still doesn't explain the iron spheres" -- Guess what, it doesn't need to. Collapse is what's important here.
Marilynn | 4:16 p.m. May 8, 2008
It is interesting how the folks who disparage Dr. Jones offer nothing factual to
back up their position. They even claim that building 7 burned down when there
are videos showing the building collapsing, not in flames but into its own
footprint!
This country has a history of false flag operations---not unique to the USA, but a device used throughout history to enable tyrants to start wars, incite hatred of target populations, and enslave their own citizens. We are in a life-or-death struggle against the New World Order elitists and eugenecists. Open your eyes, ears and mind and do some research before you dismiss what the 9/11 truth seekers already know! Even my Republican 87 year old mom gets it!
This country has a history of false flag operations---not unique to the USA, but a device used throughout history to enable tyrants to start wars, incite hatred of target populations, and enslave their own citizens. We are in a life-or-death struggle against the New World Order elitists and eugenecists. Open your eyes, ears and mind and do some research before you dismiss what the 9/11 truth seekers already know! Even my Republican 87 year old mom gets it!
AAron H. | 4:44 p.m. May 8, 2008
The following is a passage from the rejection letter Dr. Jones received from the
NIST which appears just prior to the single sentence Jones and Walch reproduced
in the May 3rd Deseret news article:
"In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapse of the towers. This conclusion is supported by a large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."
"In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapse of the towers. This conclusion is supported by a large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."
Falco98 | 5:02 p.m. May 8, 2008
Marilynn wrote:
"It is interesting how the folks who disparage Dr. Jones offer nothing factual to back up their position."
Jones presumes to be presenting facts. The only burden on those wishing to expose him is to point out where he has lied and manipulated the truth to make things seem different from reality. As far as that task is concerned, the debunkers have succeeded numerous times. Only minimal amounts of research on non-truther websites is required to gain understanding of this position.
"It is interesting how the folks who disparage Dr. Jones offer nothing factual to back up their position."
Jones presumes to be presenting facts. The only burden on those wishing to expose him is to point out where he has lied and manipulated the truth to make things seem different from reality. As far as that task is concerned, the debunkers have succeeded numerous times. Only minimal amounts of research on non-truther websites is required to gain understanding of this position.
Falco98 | 5:04 p.m. May 8, 2008
Marilynn continued:
"They even claim that building 7 burned down when there are videos showing the building collapsing, not in flames but into its own footprint!"
You really should not argue about things when you obviously have only read the "truther" version. Those of us arguing against Dr. Jones' position here have seen all those arguments, in multiple different forms, multiple times, and know them to be false. You are correct when you say "there are videos showing the building collapsing". You are vastly incorrect in your implication that it was not on fire. Your statement that we claim "building 7 burned down" is misleading -- nobody claims it "burned down", only that it failed due to fire.
That this is what happened is nearly indisputable to anyone who cares to look at the evidence (a thing foreign to most truthers, who will only look at the by-lines on truther websites). FDNY personnel predicted hours in advance that the building was in danger of collapse. It burned for 8 hours at a time when sprinklers were offline and firefighting attempts were impossible. It had a large hollow atrium in its center, and diesel tanks which fuelled fires. No conspiracy here.
"They even claim that building 7 burned down when there are videos showing the building collapsing, not in flames but into its own footprint!"
You really should not argue about things when you obviously have only read the "truther" version. Those of us arguing against Dr. Jones' position here have seen all those arguments, in multiple different forms, multiple times, and know them to be false. You are correct when you say "there are videos showing the building collapsing". You are vastly incorrect in your implication that it was not on fire. Your statement that we claim "building 7 burned down" is misleading -- nobody claims it "burned down", only that it failed due to fire.
That this is what happened is nearly indisputable to anyone who cares to look at the evidence (a thing foreign to most truthers, who will only look at the by-lines on truther websites). FDNY personnel predicted hours in advance that the building was in danger of collapse. It burned for 8 hours at a time when sprinklers were offline and firefighting attempts were impossible. It had a large hollow atrium in its center, and diesel tanks which fuelled fires. No conspiracy here.
AAron H. | 5:20 p.m. May 8, 2008
What I don't understand is how Jones can acknowledge that the fires burned
hot enough to rob steel of nearly all its strength, but then say that it's
a mystery how the towers collapsed.
The mystery was solved as soon as he admitted (probably the first "truther" to do so) it was 1000 degrees celsius in there.
The mystery was solved as soon as he admitted (probably the first "truther" to do so) it was 1000 degrees celsius in there.
Logician | 5:57 p.m. May 8, 2008
Falco98 ....
My reference to visiting a foundry still stands.
Over the past almost 7 years, many of your ilk have tried to pass off that molten metal as aluminium from the intruding plane. If you should have similar thoughts, do go see what colour molten, flowing aluminium is, compared to steel. It's called self education. Gain from it.
Regardless of quantity, what other metals do you have in mind?
Have you yet found pix of beams withdrawn from rubble piles dripping with a molten 'substance'? You have had almost 7 years to find and learn from them.
When you do, tell us what you think the 'substance' is and how it came to be molten. For so long, virtually covered by water and pulverized concrete mud.
Hint:- Google
My reference to visiting a foundry still stands.
Over the past almost 7 years, many of your ilk have tried to pass off that molten metal as aluminium from the intruding plane. If you should have similar thoughts, do go see what colour molten, flowing aluminium is, compared to steel. It's called self education. Gain from it.
Regardless of quantity, what other metals do you have in mind?
Have you yet found pix of beams withdrawn from rubble piles dripping with a molten 'substance'? You have had almost 7 years to find and learn from them.
When you do, tell us what you think the 'substance' is and how it came to be molten. For so long, virtually covered by water and pulverized concrete mud.
Hint:- Google
Loss of Freedom | 6:01 p.m. May 8, 2008
Falco98, why did Larry Silverstein tell the camera he made the decision to pull
the building? Why do firefighters testify they were told to pull out before a
countdown that ended with the collapse of the building?
The fact that a few small fires were burning (probably started intentionally to provide a cover story) does not negate these facts. It's preposterous to believe the entire building collapsed at near free fall speed upon its own footprint based solely on heat from these small fires, especially when we have testimonies of what really happened by the owner and firefighters (Google "Larry Silverstein"). When are you going to be honest and stop trying to deceive everyone?
The NIST response that the computer models can't "converge on a solution" makes total sense. The "global instability" from the "number of failures occuring" resulted from demolition and obviously cannot match their inputs for what should reasonably happen in such a scenario.
The "official" reports and communications parse words, distort meanings and attempt to convey intelligent care in researching and describing their findings. In reality, they are hollow, ambiguous, deceptive garbage written for the sole intent to deceive by creating smoke screens to confuse people.
The fact that a few small fires were burning (probably started intentionally to provide a cover story) does not negate these facts. It's preposterous to believe the entire building collapsed at near free fall speed upon its own footprint based solely on heat from these small fires, especially when we have testimonies of what really happened by the owner and firefighters (Google "Larry Silverstein"). When are you going to be honest and stop trying to deceive everyone?
The NIST response that the computer models can't "converge on a solution" makes total sense. The "global instability" from the "number of failures occuring" resulted from demolition and obviously cannot match their inputs for what should reasonably happen in such a scenario.
The "official" reports and communications parse words, distort meanings and attempt to convey intelligent care in researching and describing their findings. In reality, they are hollow, ambiguous, deceptive garbage written for the sole intent to deceive by creating smoke screens to confuse people.
Falco98 | 8:41 p.m. May 8, 2008
"Logician" wrote:
"Have you yet found pix of beams withdrawn from rubble piles dripping with a molten 'substance'? You have had almost 7 years to find and learn from them."
No. I have, however, seen pictures of ends of beams that have been cut with acetylene torches for removal, which twoofers often cite as evidence of "thermite shape charges" (which, incidentally, do not exist). I'm not sure that these are what you're referring to, of course, but given truther standards of evidence, i've seen anything and everything used to support the "molten steel" lunacy.
"Have you yet found pix of beams withdrawn from rubble piles dripping with a molten 'substance'? You have had almost 7 years to find and learn from them."
No. I have, however, seen pictures of ends of beams that have been cut with acetylene torches for removal, which twoofers often cite as evidence of "thermite shape charges" (which, incidentally, do not exist). I'm not sure that these are what you're referring to, of course, but given truther standards of evidence, i've seen anything and everything used to support the "molten steel" lunacy.
Falco98 | 8:47 p.m. May 8, 2008
Loss of Freedom wrote:
"Falco98, why did Larry Silverstein tell the camera he made the decision to pull the building?"
he didn't. not even close. try again.
(BTW, before you start trying to give me quotes, i have the sound byte from the silverstein clip memorized. you are not even close.)
"Why do firefighters testify they were told to pull out before a countdown that ended with the collapse of the building?"
You're half right, anyway. Firefighters were pulled hours beforehand, because *firefighters* knew the building was in danger. THERE ARE DOZENS OF QUOTES BACKING UP THIS FACT. And, there was no "countdown" -- once again, this is based on different quotes by different people about different things, conflated falsely together to support something that didn't actually happen.
"The fact that a few small fires were burning (probably started intentionally to provide a cover story) does not negate these facts."
Wrong on several more counts. The fires were not "small" - that is an assertion many truthers make but none back up. "intentionally started" is just silly. And making these futher baseless assertions does not negate the blatant dishonesty in your prior claims.
"Falco98, why did Larry Silverstein tell the camera he made the decision to pull the building?"
he didn't. not even close. try again.
(BTW, before you start trying to give me quotes, i have the sound byte from the silverstein clip memorized. you are not even close.)
"Why do firefighters testify they were told to pull out before a countdown that ended with the collapse of the building?"
You're half right, anyway. Firefighters were pulled hours beforehand, because *firefighters* knew the building was in danger. THERE ARE DOZENS OF QUOTES BACKING UP THIS FACT. And, there was no "countdown" -- once again, this is based on different quotes by different people about different things, conflated falsely together to support something that didn't actually happen.
"The fact that a few small fires were burning (probably started intentionally to provide a cover story) does not negate these facts."
Wrong on several more counts. The fires were not "small" - that is an assertion many truthers make but none back up. "intentionally started" is just silly. And making these futher baseless assertions does not negate the blatant dishonesty in your prior claims.
Logician | 9:32 p.m. May 8, 2008
Falco98 ...
At last you admit to not having seen something incredibly important, which happened almost7 years ago. No I am not referring to those precisely cut pillars. They belong to another, not yet discussed, part of the story.
You must somehow find the near 7 year old videos of those beams emerging from the wreckage, dripping with an interesting, glowing 'substance', which you may recognize and comment upon. Take it from me, it was not treacle. Have you tried searching in your instruction book?
Keep up with the job you paid to do, don't slacken.
At last you admit to not having seen something incredibly important, which happened almost7 years ago. No I am not referring to those precisely cut pillars. They belong to another, not yet discussed, part of the story.
You must somehow find the near 7 year old videos of those beams emerging from the wreckage, dripping with an interesting, glowing 'substance', which you may recognize and comment upon. Take it from me, it was not treacle. Have you tried searching in your instruction book?
Keep up with the job you paid to do, don't slacken.
Falco98 | 10:09 p.m. May 8, 2008
Logician,
I've seen many, if not all, of the twoofer videos and propaganda pieces. Instead of taunting me with something I supposedly haven't seen, which I will freely admit to, why not
A) describe to me some way of finding it, and
B) more importantly, describe what its implications are, how it came to be (i.e. what your theory is), how your theory is correct in the face of all the evidence against you (i.e. the complete lack of any explosives, or the fact that thermite is slow-burning and is not used in demolitions, etc). Own up and give us YOUR hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you, yet for some reason when asked to explicate a bit you remain silent.
I've seen many, if not all, of the twoofer videos and propaganda pieces. Instead of taunting me with something I supposedly haven't seen, which I will freely admit to, why not
A) describe to me some way of finding it, and
B) more importantly, describe what its implications are, how it came to be (i.e. what your theory is), how your theory is correct in the face of all the evidence against you (i.e. the complete lack of any explosives, or the fact that thermite is slow-burning and is not used in demolitions, etc). Own up and give us YOUR hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you, yet for some reason when asked to explicate a bit you remain silent.
Loss of Freedom | 11:04 p.m. May 8, 2008
Photos of the small, isolated fires with few broken windows in Building 7 prior
to the collapse abound on the internet. Just Google "Building 7".
A soundbyte: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
How would these guys know the building is about to blow? What prior experience would give them that idea?
There's also this interesting tidbit:
After the initial blast [Flight 11 hitting WTC 1], Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporate counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. [Traverse City Record Eagle 9/11/2001].
Why would the lobby have exploded before the building even fell?
A soundbyte: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
How would these guys know the building is about to blow? What prior experience would give them that idea?
There's also this interesting tidbit:
After the initial blast [Flight 11 hitting WTC 1], Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporate counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. [Traverse City Record Eagle 9/11/2001].
Why would the lobby have exploded before the building even fell?
Erik Howard | 11:09 p.m. May 8, 2008
Alan,
I told you the wrong page number it is 96 not 69. The document is NIST NCSTAR1-6D "Global Structural Analysis...Impact Damage and Fire". Sorry about the goose chase with the page number.
I don't have a problem with the acutal fire tests, but why didn't they correlate the FE models with the results of the test.
Page 96 starts to describe the fact that the sub models for the floor and wall would not create the pull in loads to recreate observed column bowing. This bowing is critical to the "Probable" Collapse sequence offered by the NIST. This is a major inconsistency in my opinion. They had to place random loads on the exterior collums. They should have just thrown away all the sub model work they did up to that point. They offer excuses why their models did not work, but this does not quantify or qualify their theory. In fact in my opinion the fact that their detailed sub models do not show the bowing, disqualifies their hypothesis. Instead of regrouping at this stumbling block, they press forward past it. I have a problem with that. It is crucial to their collapse theory.
I told you the wrong page number it is 96 not 69. The document is NIST NCSTAR1-6D "Global Structural Analysis...Impact Damage and Fire". Sorry about the goose chase with the page number.
I don't have a problem with the acutal fire tests, but why didn't they correlate the FE models with the results of the test.
Page 96 starts to describe the fact that the sub models for the floor and wall would not create the pull in loads to recreate observed column bowing. This bowing is critical to the "Probable" Collapse sequence offered by the NIST. This is a major inconsistency in my opinion. They had to place random loads on the exterior collums. They should have just thrown away all the sub model work they did up to that point. They offer excuses why their models did not work, but this does not quantify or qualify their theory. In fact in my opinion the fact that their detailed sub models do not show the bowing, disqualifies their hypothesis. Instead of regrouping at this stumbling block, they press forward past it. I have a problem with that. It is crucial to their collapse theory.
Loss of Freedom | 11:30 p.m. May 8, 2008
Falco98 stated: "Firefighters were pulled hours beforehand because
firefighters knew the building was in danger."
They obviously knew it was in danger. I'd leave too if I knew they were going to blow up the building.
They obviously knew it was in danger. I'd leave too if I knew they were going to blow up the building.
Loss of Freedom | 11:58 p.m. May 8, 2008
Falco98, I apologize for using "the" instead of "that" in
the Silverstein quote, and for not specifying he indicated it was supposedly a
joint decision with the fire fighters. To say I wasn't even close is
ridiculous.
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein lamely attempted to clarify what he meant by "pull it" but it doesn't hold any water. It's obvious what he meant. They made the decision to pull it and then watched the building collapse - simple cause and effect.
I've watched the clip where a guy describes a countdown before the collapse of building 7. I'll try to find it.
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein lamely attempted to clarify what he meant by "pull it" but it doesn't hold any water. It's obvious what he meant. They made the decision to pull it and then watched the building collapse - simple cause and effect.
I've watched the clip where a guy describes a countdown before the collapse of building 7. I'll try to find it.
Logician | 12:23 a.m. May 9, 2008
Falco98, see if this will work for you. Prefix the next single line paragraph
appropriately, to find details and quotes from named fire fighters, regarding
basement and upper level Tower explosions witnessed. Information ignored in the
official account.
whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
If this works, I shall find amongst my huge collection of bookmarks, the pix of the dripping beams.
These matters should already be in your instruction book.
whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
If this works, I shall find amongst my huge collection of bookmarks, the pix of the dripping beams.
These matters should already be in your instruction book.
Loss of Freedom | 12:51 a.m. May 9, 2008
Written for now... Google "Building 7 Countdown"
"Mark... listen to me. There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings- anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions- the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions- they happened. We were in the basement, helping a man who had been struck by pieces of flying concrete and rebar, and there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it. We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same. We spoke about it right then and there... we were discussing as we were carrying this man, saying "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?". That sort of thing does not happen from an airplane hitting the building 70, 80 stories up. We stood outside listening to the explosions. One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air."
"Mark... listen to me. There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings- anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions- the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions- they happened. We were in the basement, helping a man who had been struck by pieces of flying concrete and rebar, and there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it. We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same. We spoke about it right then and there... we were discussing as we were carrying this man, saying "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?". That sort of thing does not happen from an airplane hitting the building 70, 80 stories up. We stood outside listening to the explosions. One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air."
eyeswideopen | 2:19 a.m. May 9, 2008
Thanks Logician and Loss of Freedom for your continued posts. I read
"History of Rothschilds". Sure makes sense as a "theoretical
starting point." Wow!
To think that one family has exerted so much control is astounding. This completely changed my perception of reality.
To think that one family has exerted so much control is astounding. This completely changed my perception of reality.
AAron H. | 2:43 a.m. May 9, 2008
Loss... the passage you have quoted is from a person known only as "Mike
the EMT".
Mike the EMT does not exist. He is a fictional creation (the author is believed to be either Alex Jones or Dylan Avery) and the events he described never happened.
Mike the EMT does not exist. He is a fictional creation (the author is believed to be either Alex Jones or Dylan Avery) and the events he described never happened.
Alan Williams | 2:54 a.m. May 9, 2008
Erik,
O.K., I see what you're talking about. There is a discrepancy between modeled and observed pull-in amounts. However, how realistic is it really to expect these values to match? It doesn't look to me like their models could be expected to be all that accurate, as explained starting on page 92.
They're simply properly adjusting the pull-in force values to match what was observed. That observation is certainly a more reliable indicator than their theoretical models, which have their inherent limitations. Nothing here is an EXACT science, as Jones and Co. unrealistically and erroneously seem to expect. NIST's collapse "theory" is not really that theoretical, it was directly observed in photographs and videos.
Meanwhile, an EXCELLENT INDIRECT REBUTTAL (published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE) to many of Jones' implications can be found by Googling "northwestern civil and environmental engineering", and upon reaching that department homepage, searching for "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York".
You'll find that it contains lots of complicated engineering formulas and calculations, the kind that seem to always be missing from Jones' presentations.
O.K., I see what you're talking about. There is a discrepancy between modeled and observed pull-in amounts. However, how realistic is it really to expect these values to match? It doesn't look to me like their models could be expected to be all that accurate, as explained starting on page 92.
They're simply properly adjusting the pull-in force values to match what was observed. That observation is certainly a more reliable indicator than their theoretical models, which have their inherent limitations. Nothing here is an EXACT science, as Jones and Co. unrealistically and erroneously seem to expect. NIST's collapse "theory" is not really that theoretical, it was directly observed in photographs and videos.
Meanwhile, an EXCELLENT INDIRECT REBUTTAL (published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE) to many of Jones' implications can be found by Googling "northwestern civil and environmental engineering", and upon reaching that department homepage, searching for "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York".
You'll find that it contains lots of complicated engineering formulas and calculations, the kind that seem to always be missing from Jones' presentations.
Loss of Freedom | 8:36 a.m. May 9, 2008
Continuation of prior quote about countdown:
"Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes. THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used). There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, there were bright flashes up and down the sides of building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us! There was no question about it until a day or so later when the news was reporting that it had collapsed due to fire. We kept wondering when they were going to correct the news reports. Eventually, it became "official story"."
The issue of a countdown and explosions have been corroborated by various individuals.
"Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes. THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used). There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, there were bright flashes up and down the sides of building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us! There was no question about it until a day or so later when the news was reporting that it had collapsed due to fire. We kept wondering when they were going to correct the news reports. Eventually, it became "official story"."
The issue of a countdown and explosions have been corroborated by various individuals.
Em | 9:45 a.m. May 9, 2008
RE: - - - "With masked renovations, e.g. some part of false maintanance or
elevator company work you got access to the inner core."
Pleas (sic) describe for us how this fake "maintenance" work was carried out."
This in the public record...
A British man, Scott Forbes who worked for Fiduciary Trust in the WTC South Tower describes what happened the week-end prior to 9/11 this way: In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.
On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower."
Pleas (sic) describe for us how this fake "maintenance" work was carried out."
This in the public record...
A British man, Scott Forbes who worked for Fiduciary Trust in the WTC South Tower describes what happened the week-end prior to 9/11 this way: In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.
On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower."
Em | 9:51 a.m. May 9, 2008
(Power down record continued...)
This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough[t] back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ..."
Scroogle (or Google if you must) "power down 911 WTC"
Since people keep asking "how" the WTC's could have been pre-rigged to implode, I just thought I'd add Scott Forbes's 2 cents to the discussion...
This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough[t] back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ..."
Scroogle (or Google if you must) "power down 911 WTC"
Since people keep asking "how" the WTC's could have been pre-rigged to implode, I just thought I'd add Scott Forbes's 2 cents to the discussion...
Loss of Freedom | 1:23 p.m. May 9, 2008
Thanks, Em. We can argue all day long about the technical details of the
collapses using fancy engineering formulas and computer models. The majority of
people get lost in those analyses and don't want to spend the time to
understand them.
The bottom line: The testimonies of hundreds of eyewitnesses is sufficient to paint a clear picture that the towers were pre-rigged for demolition. That's not to say the engineering is not important, because I think it very clearly corroborates and strengthens the eye witness accounts from a scientific perspective.
Thanks to Dr. Jones and others for wading through the minutia and fighting the technical battles. The evidence is consistent on all levels and the sinister motives are clear.
The planes were an excuse to blame Muslims, which means the perpe"traitors" have a hidden agenda, which was to deceive the people into fighting false wars in the name of terror and to provide the pretext for Americans to sacrifice their freedoms. For what end? To gain more control of the US and the world. It's just another major stepping stone in their quest for world conquest.
The bottom line: The testimonies of hundreds of eyewitnesses is sufficient to paint a clear picture that the towers were pre-rigged for demolition. That's not to say the engineering is not important, because I think it very clearly corroborates and strengthens the eye witness accounts from a scientific perspective.
Thanks to Dr. Jones and others for wading through the minutia and fighting the technical battles. The evidence is consistent on all levels and the sinister motives are clear.
The planes were an excuse to blame Muslims, which means the perpe"traitors" have a hidden agenda, which was to deceive the people into fighting false wars in the name of terror and to provide the pretext for Americans to sacrifice their freedoms. For what end? To gain more control of the US and the world. It's just another major stepping stone in their quest for world conquest.
Anonymous | 2:39 p.m. May 9, 2008
Excuse me, Falco, but I did NOT say that bldg 7 wasn't on fire, but that it
collapsed "not in flames but into its own footprint!" I have seen
footage of tall buildings turned into blazing infernos, burning uncontrollably
for many hours, but not a single incidence of one of them collapsing like the
WTC buildings did. At no time was bldg 7 even close to being engulfed in
flames.
My son's house burned recently. The fire dept. said it had been a very hot fire that raged for hours, and yet, the house not only did not collapse, but the exterior shell is still standing! The house is gutted, but the fire retardant insulation protected the exterior. Pretty good for a wood-frame structure, huh?
Falco, I believe you are a disinfo agent facilitating the agenda of the New World Order, so I shall move on and not bother to respond to any more of your disingenuous arguments.
My son's house burned recently. The fire dept. said it had been a very hot fire that raged for hours, and yet, the house not only did not collapse, but the exterior shell is still standing! The house is gutted, but the fire retardant insulation protected the exterior. Pretty good for a wood-frame structure, huh?
Falco, I believe you are a disinfo agent facilitating the agenda of the New World Order, so I shall move on and not bother to respond to any more of your disingenuous arguments.
Marilynn | 2:42 p.m. May 9, 2008
Oops. Forgot to enter my name on last comment responding to Falco.
No to Tyranny | 5:54 p.m. May 9, 2008
What we witnessed on 9/11 was an operation carried out by Latter Day Gadiantons
(for those familiar with the Book of Mormon), not bin Laden or 19 Arab
terrorists. I am of the opinion that the reason many of the 9/11 conspiracy
antagonists (who support the government's fairy tale) continue to berate
and poke fun of those decrying foul play and a real conspiracy is because they
simply cannot or do not want to believe that our own government could really be
that evil, all for profit, power and control. I would suspect that many of you
posting here are LDS... what does the Book of Mormon constantly warn about and
speak of all throughout its pages? Conspiring men and secret combinations who
seek monetary gain, power and control at any expense, including the loss of
human life. The only true conspiracy here is what our government wants us to
believe!!! LOL.
Falco98 | 12:37 a.m. May 10, 2008
Loss of Freedom wrote:
"The testimonies of hundreds of eyewitnesses is sufficient to paint a clear picture that the towers were pre-rigged for demolition."
Correct... but oh, if only any word in your sentence had a shred of truth to it. Too bad for you.
"The testimonies of hundreds of eyewitnesses is sufficient to paint a clear picture that the towers were pre-rigged for demolition."
Correct... but oh, if only any word in your sentence had a shred of truth to it. Too bad for you.
Falco98 | 12:41 a.m. May 10, 2008
Loss of Freedom wrote:
"They obviously knew it was in danger. I'd leave too if I knew they were going to blow up the building."
Well, at least you're forthright in implicating the firefighters in the supposed conspiracy. Other troofers accuse the debunkers of inventing some strawman argument when, following this line of logic, we try to point out that they are now claiming the firefighters "pulled" WTC7.
one little problem, of course, is that firefighters are not in the business of controlled demolitions. add that to the multitude of other problems. please oh please look up occam's razor.
"They obviously knew it was in danger. I'd leave too if I knew they were going to blow up the building."
Well, at least you're forthright in implicating the firefighters in the supposed conspiracy. Other troofers accuse the debunkers of inventing some strawman argument when, following this line of logic, we try to point out that they are now claiming the firefighters "pulled" WTC7.
one little problem, of course, is that firefighters are not in the business of controlled demolitions. add that to the multitude of other problems. please oh please look up occam's razor.
Falco98 | 12:44 a.m. May 10, 2008
Marilynn wrote:
"Falco, I believe you are a disinfo agent facilitating the agenda of the New World Order, so I shall move on and not bother to respond to any more of your disingenuous arguments."
The delusion becomes apparent. Believe what you like, but let us know when you're ready to rejoin reality.
"Falco, I believe you are a disinfo agent facilitating the agenda of the New World Order, so I shall move on and not bother to respond to any more of your disingenuous arguments."
The delusion becomes apparent. Believe what you like, but let us know when you're ready to rejoin reality.
Falco98 | 12:53 a.m. May 10, 2008
Logician:
I checked out your link (which I'd like to gripe about - i tried to post a link in one of my replies and that particular reply was apparently deleted), hoping to see "dripping beams" but i guess not. You've come up with "quotes of firefighters who heard explosions and so forth", but of course, I've already seen all these.
Let's run the numbers:
Firefighters who heard "explosions": several
Firefighters who saw explosives: zero
Firefighters who claimed the "explosions" they heard were the effects of explosives: zero
Firefighters who claim the buildings were brought down with explosives: zero
Witnesses (firefighters or not) who saw flashes associated with demolitions blasts: zero
Witnesses / cameras observing demo-style explosions on the outside of the buildings: zero
Number of "explosions" heard as buildings actually collapsed: zero
Traces of explosives found: ZERO
Shall we continue?
I checked out your link (which I'd like to gripe about - i tried to post a link in one of my replies and that particular reply was apparently deleted), hoping to see "dripping beams" but i guess not. You've come up with "quotes of firefighters who heard explosions and so forth", but of course, I've already seen all these.
Let's run the numbers:
Firefighters who heard "explosions": several
Firefighters who saw explosives: zero
Firefighters who claimed the "explosions" they heard were the effects of explosives: zero
Firefighters who claim the buildings were brought down with explosives: zero
Witnesses (firefighters or not) who saw flashes associated with demolitions blasts: zero
Witnesses / cameras observing demo-style explosions on the outside of the buildings: zero
Number of "explosions" heard as buildings actually collapsed: zero
Traces of explosives found: ZERO
Shall we continue?
Logician | 2:50 a.m. May 10, 2008
Falco98 ... that was a neat trick from you, insisting that I provide information
on how to reach the sites showing dripping metal from withdrawn beam ends.
My first experimental effort suceeded, but others I sent were not printed. I believe I am now banned. So you are left to defend your view points at will.
However, with a little imagination, you will easily find what I have seen via Google. So far THEY have not banned it, I would like to think.
If his gets through I'll be more than surprised, and pleased.
My first experimental effort suceeded, but others I sent were not printed. I believe I am now banned. So you are left to defend your view points at will.
However, with a little imagination, you will easily find what I have seen via Google. So far THEY have not banned it, I would like to think.
If his gets through I'll be more than surprised, and pleased.
Guesswhotoo6 | 10:03 a.m. May 10, 2008
Hats off to Mr. Jones and his work. I am sure BYU is funded and sponsored by
state and federal agencies, one need look no further in explaining why he was
fired. Along with metal spheroids, there is ample photographic evidence of
damage to the structural elements and protective paint layers on these elements
to point to use of explosives. The high velocity gases and debris slurry
impacted the structural steel and scrubbed off paint and steel wherever
explosives were used. After a few days, it rained and the bare steel developed
a bright red coat of new rust, making the damage areas very visible. Other
similar evidence of explosives is associated with the remaining concrete still
attached to the steel frames. You can also notice that many bolt holes in the
vertical external walls are now oval, indicating substantial lateral forces
exerted on the structure, which is corroborated by photographic evidence of
ejected beams and structural members. Recent video and acoustic evidence shows
hundreds of flashes likely originating from explosive events. Finally, Do you
really think a flying aluminum can 0.1" thick can knock down a million ton
building? Truth is in the data, not the MSM BS.
Loss of Freedom | 12:18 p.m. May 10, 2008
Falco98, your rhetoric is very transparent.
I didn't implicate the firefighters. I simply stated that Silverstein indicated "they" made the decision to pull and "they" obviously knew it was in danger because "they" were told. If I were told it was going to be blown, I would leave too. That doesn't mean I would be part of the demolition.
Those who actually pre-rigged the buildings are the other "they". I don't believe the firefighters had anything to do with the demolition. Silverstein is the one who implicated the firefighters, trying to shift responsibility from himself.
You will never be able to adequately explain why Silverstein said they made the decision to pull it -and then they watched it collapse, and yes there are a multitude of witnesses who describe the explosions and the bombs and the molten metal, and the exploded basement levels and lobbies prior to the collapse.
Can you answer truthfully why you and the other "falsers" are so dedicated to countering this evidence? Are you somehow fulfilling some patriotic duty to defend the supposed innocent from false accusations or is it simply important to not let the people know what is really going on? Your motive please?
I didn't implicate the firefighters. I simply stated that Silverstein indicated "they" made the decision to pull and "they" obviously knew it was in danger because "they" were told. If I were told it was going to be blown, I would leave too. That doesn't mean I would be part of the demolition.
Those who actually pre-rigged the buildings are the other "they". I don't believe the firefighters had anything to do with the demolition. Silverstein is the one who implicated the firefighters, trying to shift responsibility from himself.
You will never be able to adequately explain why Silverstein said they made the decision to pull it -and then they watched it collapse, and yes there are a multitude of witnesses who describe the explosions and the bombs and the molten metal, and the exploded basement levels and lobbies prior to the collapse.
Can you answer truthfully why you and the other "falsers" are so dedicated to countering this evidence? Are you somehow fulfilling some patriotic duty to defend the supposed innocent from false accusations or is it simply important to not let the people know what is really going on? Your motive please?
Falco98 | 1:05 p.m. May 10, 2008
Loss of Freedom wrote:
"Silverstein is the one who implicated the firefighters, trying to shift responsibility from himself."
You're tripping over your own doublespeak. Silverstein simply described the decision made by the FDNY and himself to abandon any further attempt at controlling the building's situation and to call it a loss. He didn't implicate anybody. But the truthers who insist he's really admitting to demolishing the building -- which itself makes very, very little sense -- must admit that the logical conclusion is that the FDNY did the demolitions. You're backpedaling from this point now, for good reason, but the problem is that your accusation no longer holds up.
"Silverstein is the one who implicated the firefighters, trying to shift responsibility from himself."
You're tripping over your own doublespeak. Silverstein simply described the decision made by the FDNY and himself to abandon any further attempt at controlling the building's situation and to call it a loss. He didn't implicate anybody. But the truthers who insist he's really admitting to demolishing the building -- which itself makes very, very little sense -- must admit that the logical conclusion is that the FDNY did the demolitions. You're backpedaling from this point now, for good reason, but the problem is that your accusation no longer holds up.
Falco98 | 1:08 p.m. May 10, 2008
Loss of Freedom wrote:
"Can you answer truthfully why you and the other "falsers" are so dedicated to countering this evidence?"
If it were actually "evidence", then I wouldn't be dedicated like I currently am. But since what the truth movement keeps referring to "Evidence" is easily shown to be lies, manipulation, doublespeak, quote-mining, strawman fallacies and arguments from incredulity, I strive to at least try to counterbalance your disinfo with a breath of reality, not so much in hopes of converting any truthers (though it happens sometimes), as to perhaps prevent new people from being sucked into the web of lies of trutherism before they get too embroiled into its religion. (I call it a religion because, like many other religious zealots, you can be shown all the evidence in the world but you continue to ignore any that doesn't support your preconcieved notions).
"Can you answer truthfully why you and the other "falsers" are so dedicated to countering this evidence?"
If it were actually "evidence", then I wouldn't be dedicated like I currently am. But since what the truth movement keeps referring to "Evidence" is easily shown to be lies, manipulation, doublespeak, quote-mining, strawman fallacies and arguments from incredulity, I strive to at least try to counterbalance your disinfo with a breath of reality, not so much in hopes of converting any truthers (though it happens sometimes), as to perhaps prevent new people from being sucked into the web of lies of trutherism before they get too embroiled into its religion. (I call it a religion because, like many other religious zealots, you can be shown all the evidence in the world but you continue to ignore any that doesn't support your preconcieved notions).
Falco98 | 1:14 p.m. May 10, 2008
Loss of Freedom wrote:
"You will never be able to adequately explain why Silverstein said they made the decision to pull it -and then they watched it collapse, and yes there are a multitude of witnesses who describe the explosions and the bombs and the molten metal, and the exploded basement levels and lobbies prior to the collapse."
The first half of that is laughably easy. The FDNY and silverstein decided that the building was too severely damaged to even consider further firefighting attempts. FDNY chief Nigro confirms this and further takes full responsibility, adding that Silverstein didn't actually play into the decision. It is the truthers who continually fail to show why a conversation between Silverstein and the FDNY should imply that they have agreed to demolish the building, when neither party has ever been in the business of demolitions.
And to the second part -- "explosions", "bombs", "explosions in the basement level and lobbies": none of these refer to WTC7. All of them are explained, and none of them are consistent in any_way with actual controlled demolitions. You can use the shotgun-approach all you like, but some of us have been around long-enough to see it's BS.
"You will never be able to adequately explain why Silverstein said they made the decision to pull it -and then they watched it collapse, and yes there are a multitude of witnesses who describe the explosions and the bombs and the molten metal, and the exploded basement levels and lobbies prior to the collapse."
The first half of that is laughably easy. The FDNY and silverstein decided that the building was too severely damaged to even consider further firefighting attempts. FDNY chief Nigro confirms this and further takes full responsibility, adding that Silverstein didn't actually play into the decision. It is the truthers who continually fail to show why a conversation between Silverstein and the FDNY should imply that they have agreed to demolish the building, when neither party has ever been in the business of demolitions.
And to the second part -- "explosions", "bombs", "explosions in the basement level and lobbies": none of these refer to WTC7. All of them are explained, and none of them are consistent in any_way with actual controlled demolitions. You can use the shotgun-approach all you like, but some of us have been around long-enough to see it's BS.
AAron H. | 3:43 p.m. May 10, 2008
So let me see if I got this right...
This secret governemnt group managed to develop an entirely new, completely untested technology for controlled demolition, they used it to carry out a demolition project 12 times larger than the biggest known controlled demo, they set it all up in a few hours and it all went off without a hitch and without anyone noticing?
That's what we have so far, correct?
This secret governemnt group managed to develop an entirely new, completely untested technology for controlled demolition, they used it to carry out a demolition project 12 times larger than the biggest known controlled demo, they set it all up in a few hours and it all went off without a hitch and without anyone noticing?
That's what we have so far, correct?
Loss of Freedom | 6:23 p.m. May 10, 2008
Brilliant summary, AAron H. - absolutely brilliant!
The problem is it takes a lot longer than one afternoon to rig a building, which is exactly why they had to power things down in advance, as indicated by Scott Forbes. The other problem is that a lot of people noticed what really happened. Not exactly pulled off without a hitch. Nice try.
It's especially telling watching the raw footage and testimonies from that day - raw, real-time reactions from real people (including innocent firefighters) who were there and had no idea why bombs were present and explosions were occurring on the lower levels before the buildings collapsed. It made no sense to them.
Obviously, those who planned this event are very powerful and have means over time of causing witnesses to be quiet or to provide testimony as directed, or to even suppress or modify evidence. The official 9-11 Omission Report provides ample evidence of this.
The raw footage speaks for itself. I've seen too much of it to be persuaded it was false.
The problem is it takes a lot longer than one afternoon to rig a building, which is exactly why they had to power things down in advance, as indicated by Scott Forbes. The other problem is that a lot of people noticed what really happened. Not exactly pulled off without a hitch. Nice try.
It's especially telling watching the raw footage and testimonies from that day - raw, real-time reactions from real people (including innocent firefighters) who were there and had no idea why bombs were present and explosions were occurring on the lower levels before the buildings collapsed. It made no sense to them.
Obviously, those who planned this event are very powerful and have means over time of causing witnesses to be quiet or to provide testimony as directed, or to even suppress or modify evidence. The official 9-11 Omission Report provides ample evidence of this.
The raw footage speaks for itself. I've seen too much of it to be persuaded it was false.
Logician | 6:51 p.m. May 10, 2008
Falco98 ...
It appears I have been partially reinstated. I will not further jeopardize my position trying to feed you with information, which has been openly available for the past almost 7 years.
That is NOT taunting you, that is simply telling you.
Try arranging a few appropriate words together for Google searches. It's all there if you are imterested.
It appears I have been partially reinstated. I will not further jeopardize my position trying to feed you with information, which has been openly available for the past almost 7 years.
That is NOT taunting you, that is simply telling you.
Try arranging a few appropriate words together for Google searches. It's all there if you are imterested.
Falco98 | 8:41 p.m. May 10, 2008
For people concerned with "sub-basement explosions heard in WTC1", you
should probably find and watch a video called "William Rodriguez vs. Kevin
Mcpadden" on youtube. Also google for "william rodriguez: escape
artist".
Anonymous | 9:56 p.m. May 10, 2008
Scott Forbes refers to a single 36 hour power down that no one else has
corroborated.
By contrast, Controlled Demolitions Inc. Took more than 7 months to rig the J.L. Hudson department store in Detroit which surrently stands as the world record for controlled demo at 23 above ground stories.
By that measure, it would have taken them more than 6 years to do WTC 1, 2 and 7. And that's without the extra work of putting everything back together afterward so that no one notices.
It just can't be done. It's simply NOT POSSIBLE.
By contrast, Controlled Demolitions Inc. Took more than 7 months to rig the J.L. Hudson department store in Detroit which surrently stands as the world record for controlled demo at 23 above ground stories.
By that measure, it would have taken them more than 6 years to do WTC 1, 2 and 7. And that's without the extra work of putting everything back together afterward so that no one notices.
It just can't be done. It's simply NOT POSSIBLE.
Logician | 3:44 a.m. May 11, 2008
Anonymous ...
Plans for US Middle East domination have been around for decades. Those buildings were around for decades. Have you considered that they may have been prepared at the outset? Stranger things have happened in the name of World politics. A thought.
Something, other than kerosene must explain those temperatures reached, capable of melting steel. It certainly wasn't carpet plastic or office paper.
As a farm raised child, I endlessly tried to use a Primus pressure kerosene blow torch to melt things. Never got past solder and aluminium. Steel fencing wire didn't come near to melting. Years later, while becoming a mechanical design engineer, I realized why along the way. Color / temperature.
I believe those buildings were rigged, one way or another ... one time or another. Somehow, something was used to melt steel. It was found in abundance and photographed as beams were withdrawn from WTC rubble piles, dripping with the correct colored material to indicate it was molten steel. This has never been explained officially. My eyes tell me what I was looking at. Many named workers reported seeing it as it happened. Find their reports and believe them. They were on official duty.
Plans for US Middle East domination have been around for decades. Those buildings were around for decades. Have you considered that they may have been prepared at the outset? Stranger things have happened in the name of World politics. A thought.
Something, other than kerosene must explain those temperatures reached, capable of melting steel. It certainly wasn't carpet plastic or office paper.
As a farm raised child, I endlessly tried to use a Primus pressure kerosene blow torch to melt things. Never got past solder and aluminium. Steel fencing wire didn't come near to melting. Years later, while becoming a mechanical design engineer, I realized why along the way. Color / temperature.
I believe those buildings were rigged, one way or another ... one time or another. Somehow, something was used to melt steel. It was found in abundance and photographed as beams were withdrawn from WTC rubble piles, dripping with the correct colored material to indicate it was molten steel. This has never been explained officially. My eyes tell me what I was looking at. Many named workers reported seeing it as it happened. Find their reports and believe them. They were on official duty.
Loss of Freedom | 8:36 a.m. May 11, 2008
Having a rough time getting my postings cleared. I agree with Anonymous this
was no standard demolition. In addition to having building supports cut at the
base, upward flying debris leave no doubt explosions occurred.
Ted Twietmeyer:
"Much has been previously written about a nuclear event on Sept. 2001. Elevated tritium levels have been measured in run-off from fire-hose water at about 27 times the normal level in the environment. Tritium is formed during nuclear reactions. According to Dr. Ed Ward, "Two billion pounds seemed like an extremely large amount of particulate matter from buildings whose total weight has been quoted at around 3 billion pounds. Debris removal has been quoted at 1.2 billion pounds. Based on these rough numbers two-thirds of the building was indeed turned to dust or vaporized."
Check out evidence of melted cars.
Ted Twietmeyer:
"Much has been previously written about a nuclear event on Sept. 2001. Elevated tritium levels have been measured in run-off from fire-hose water at about 27 times the normal level in the environment. Tritium is formed during nuclear reactions. According to Dr. Ed Ward, "Two billion pounds seemed like an extremely large amount of particulate matter from buildings whose total weight has been quoted at around 3 billion pounds. Debris removal has been quoted at 1.2 billion pounds. Based on these rough numbers two-thirds of the building was indeed turned to dust or vaporized."
Check out evidence of melted cars.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Gators beat FSU again 8:35 p.m.
- Virginia Tech routs Virginia 8:33 p.m.
- Utah State football: Aggies beat... 8:32 p.m.
- Today on TV 8:28 p.m.
- Photo: The Gingerbread (Super)Man 8:24 p.m.
- Court may try youth as an adult 8:20 p.m.
- Missing Layton boy found 8:19 p.m.
- Magistrate wants looting trials set 8:18 p.m.
- Ways to help others in need 7:49 p.m.
- Woman delivers grandchild 7:49 p.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Running game key to BYU offense
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview
- Idaho woman dies after fall
- Cougars beat Utes, 26-23
189 - Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin134
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Cave to be sealed with body inside114
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Letters: Trump card for believers99
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Hate crimes against gays rose 11%74
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Hey yoot fans that makes it 3 out of the last 4 BYU has won. Not surprised...
"BYU fans | 8:21 p.m. Nov. 28, 2009 can't talk thrash when your team have...
when is the airport rally to send BYU team to LV bowl?
The final play of the game points out the fine line between "hero" and...
Bringing up the 1984 national title every year when they cannot make the big...
Typical Yewt fans. All they have is the past and it is a very very very...
No way was WYnn better. Hall didn't have a good game, but he pulled it out...
BYU still owns the only college football title in the state of Utah. Keep...
Don't pull that garbage because I can say: National Championship...
Hate to tell you this, but whether you were at the Cotton Bowl or not, it...
Advertisements
I found a much better source: Google "World Trade Center Hot Spots" by jakeogh.
Besides the FEMA / ASCE study which found molten steel especially from WTC7 "Limited Metallurgical Examination" Appendix C, NIST first claimed they had steel probes adequate for examinations regarding all investigations, later they claimed "No steel was recovered from WTC7 (a lie, what was then investigated in the latter mentioned study), later claiming the conditions in the wreckage were irrelevant (they are NOT!) and Dr. Barnett quibbling about acid rain as possible source for the sulphur- that man was clearly brought right on track by some kind of pressure, as many other scientists he depends on government money and reputation.
The one that was attacked by the straw-attack-dogs. As with Kevin Ryan or Dr. Jones.
To all shills and dis-info-conartist here: Don't mess with Texas!