NIST Report: We did not test the WTC steel for explosives or thermite residue

[nebula]

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


From NIST FAQ sheet:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

So who was in charge of this farce of an investigation?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Please don't confuse your definition of "farce" with actual farces.

There was no reason to test the steel for those compounds.

Despite all of this caterwauling that goes on down here, the collapse of the WTC buildings without the assistance of human-planted explosive devices is a well-established fact.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

3. There was certainly a reason to test the steel for those compounds.

The reason would be to present the appearance to the public that a
thorough and honest investigation was being performed.

Lack of tests looks like the investigators were covering up and
engaging in circular reasoning and reduces public confidence in the
validity of the investigations.

In what way can you say that the gravity driven collapse is a fact?
In what way was that established?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. If they had done them, you would have said they were faked.

You would have said they didn't do them in the right places.

You would have said they didn't do ALL the steel.

You would have said that the government did them so we can't trust them.

[nebula]

5. Assuming that testing would turn out negative

for explosives. Why do you make such an assumption?

well I suppose there's no need for testing when you're a psychic.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Why would I make such an assumption?

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

There were no detonations, so there could have been no explosive residues.

[nebula]

7. What do you call this?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

a loud fart?






and this?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&feature=related

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0&feature=related

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M&feature=related

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJO_7Ca6VFE

[Bolo Boffin]

13. The first video link you provide happened well after both towers had fallen

and did not result in the collapse of 7.

Therefore, it was not an explosive device severing the columns of any of those buildings. Such an explosive device would have appeared in the seismic records. Experts agree that no such signature vibrations occur.

The second video is firemen describing what they heard. They use similes and metaphors. A 110-story building falling down gets real loud. But if explosive devices had been taking out the columns, the seismographs would have picked it up. Therefore, no explosive devices were used to take down these buildings.

Marlena Cruz is in your third video. Her described explosions were from the impact of the plane. She was in the hospital by the time the South Tower fell. Her experience is colored by the 1993 attempt. She was also in the basement, and the collapses in the towers both began at impact level. Her account could not be less about the actual collapses if you tried.

Your fourth and fifth videos are collection of people talking about explosions. That's fine. But scientific evidence shows that no actual explosive devices were used to bring down those towers. A building tearing itself apart is going to be really, really, really loud. It doesn't mean explosive devices.

Do you understand the quote from Blanchard? The seismographs are not just absence of evidence. This is not something for which all of these accounts can fill the gap. Explosive devices will always produce characteristic vibration patterns in any seismograph capable of detecting the collapse. The characteristic vibration patterns of explosive devices were not present in the seismographs that detected the collapses of these buildings.

It isn't enough to produce accounts of really loud sounds. You have to explain why these seismographs didn't detect explosive devices, when they would have if explosive devices were used.

[petgoat]

14. Thermate doesn't tickle the seismograph. Cut the core columns and charges won't tickle it.

Bingo! Why they used thermate AND explosives!

[Bolo Boffin]

15. But then why quote after quote of sounds of explosions?

No viable method of thermi/ate being used to bring down the towers has ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER been proposed. Not an adequate device, not an adequate setup, not an adequate execution. EVER.

In fact, this fantastical thermi/ate method has never been used BEFORE or SINCE their proposed use in the WTC buildings.

[petgoat]

16. Why sounds of explosions? Cause there were explosions!

I thought you were monitoring the Gage show. There's a
thermite shaped charge.

You're missing the point. Cutting the core columns
dampens the concussion so the explosions don't reach
the ground. You'd cut every core column somewhere,
but at different floors so the stresses are redistributed
and the building still stands.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. There were no explosive devices. They would have been on the seismographs.

That thermite shaped charge is completely unfeasible for the core columns, petgoat. At the impact zone, most of the core columns were I-beams. How do you fit that shaped charge to an I-beam?

Collapse initiation for the towers was when the deforming perimeter columns finally gave way under the influence of the sagging floor trusses. All of this is documented in pictures and video and confirmed by NIST's tests. And as Bazant and Zhou demonstrated, once the mass of the upper section is in motion, it only has to fall a single story before accumulating enough force by an order of magnitude to overwhelm the structure below.

You don't NEED strategic cuts here and there.

And are you seriously suggesting the strategic cuts were meant to dampen other concussions so that seismographs wouldn't pick them up?

Seriously?

[petgoat]

21. How do I fit shaped charges to an I beam? I don't. I hire junkies and child molesters to do it.

I guess I have them put two on the "serifs" and one on the "upright".

How do you do it?

confirmed by NIST's tests.

NIST's tests FAILED to confirm the floor sag theory. Though they doubled
the live load on the floor and doubled duration of the fire they got only
3 inches of sag--but they threw out the test and used 42 inches of sag in
their model.

it only has to fall a single story before accumulating enough force

Bazant and Zhou's calcs assume a monolithic mass striking with absolute
precision on the structure below. Of course there was no such thing. This
was not a hammer driving a nail, bolo. It was like a blind man trying to
drive a nail with another nail. OUCH!

You don't NEED strategic cuts here and there.

You certainly do. Otherwise you get 100-yard sheets of perimeter wall material
peeling off and falling on adjacent buildings, inspiring messy insurance
investigations (and questions about why those buildings didn't themselves collapse).
You get 700 feet of core toppling onto other structures. You have to take the
core apart.

You use thermate to cut the core columns and dampen the transmission of the
explosive shock to the ground. The stagger the cuts widely, putting cuts on adjacent
columns on floors far apart, so the gravity loads are redistributed, but the
seismiographic tickle is damped, as the sound is damped on a broken bell.

[nebula]

66. Bullcrap

These were more than 'loud explosive sounds,' these 'loud sounds' did severe damage to elevators, lobbies, and vehicles parked in the lower level parking according to countless witnesses. These 'loud sounds' caused injury to people in the basement area like the female WTC employee who was interviewed by Peter Jennings while recovering in the hospital from her injuries.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Any column-severing explosive device would have been detected.

Any other explosion that was not severing parts of the structure could not have contributed to the fall of the building.

[nebula]

73. Where does NIST state in their answer to the question

that the seismic data had anything to do with their refusal to test for explosive residue??

or are you talking out of your ass?

[petgoat]

8. Who cares what I would have said? They would have had the appearance of a real investigation. nt

[LARED]

9. You're own words show your inability to be objective

Who cares what I would have said? They would have had the appearance of a real investigation.

Translation; Not matter what level or diligence of investigation was performed it would have only been for appearance. I will never let logic or science get in the way of my faith.

[petgoat]

10. Let's talk about the NIST report, not about petgoat--if you please. nt

[LARED]

12. Why bother, you have no interest in talking about the NIST report

You don't understand what it says, and refuse to accept anything it says.

[petgoat]

22. I LOVE Talking about the NIST Report, and I understand what it says just fine.

It says that fires brought down the twin towers, and it
desperately reverse engineers the desired conclusion to
try to demonstrate it, and even though they lie valiantly,
ultimately they are forced to admit that they can not
provide a full explanation of it.

And an examination of the report shows they don't even try.

[LARED]

23. Thank you for making my point

Other than the NIST stating they cannot provide a FUll explanation you have entirely misrepresented the report

[petgoat]

24. What exactly did I misrepresent, or are you more interesting in signifying than clarifying? nt

[LARED]

26. Sure

It says that fires brought down the twin tower

That's not the entire story. To say that's what the NIST states is a willful misrepresentation of the report

and it desperately reverse engineers the desired conclusion to try to demonstrate it,

I can only conclude you don't understand reverse engineering.

[petgoat]

27. It says fires brought down the WTC. Without the fires, they woudn't have come down. nt

[LARED]

28. Do you think anyone except you thinks that's an honest representation? nt

[petgoat]

29. It's a true characterization. Why do you insist on talking about me instead of the report? nt

[LARED]

30. It's difficult to separate your lack of understanding regarding the report

and you.

[petgoat]

33. You'd rather engage in ad hominem slurs than defend the report. nt

[LARED]

38. The NIST report does not need my defense

It either stands on its own or falls. The problem is not with the report itself, it's with your understanding of it. Something I am not the first to tell you.

[petgoat]

48. The report is a lie that discards its own experimental results when they are not those desired.

It presents pretty pictures that look like empirical data and are
nothing but fantasies because they don't have the steel to back
it up.




It tells us that total symmetrical collapse was inevitable without
bothering top explain it. And it lacks the basic scientific honesty
to express regret for the fact that the steel was destroyed before
they could look at it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. The *only* understanding you need of the NIST report is the FACT that NO WTC7 steel was tested...

... Period. They had the story the government made up, then they built a computer model to fit their desired outcome..

Repeat after me, LARED... "NO WTC 7 STEEL WAS TESTED FOR ANYTHING"

Now let that sink in for a while...

[LARED]

37. Well, thanks for clearing that little issue up - nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. Hey, any time, amigo!

Do you have any documents of NIST testing steel from WTC 7? If so, please post them, or at least a link to them...

:hi:

Ghost

[LARED]

40. While it would be useful to have samples from WTC 7, what

difference does it make?

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. What difference does it make? How about 'all the difference in the world'?

It would be nice to verify your information and analytical findings with some actual evidence... wouldn't it?

If there was NO steel tested, how *else* do they come to their conclusions?

Answer: They take a wild guess, then build a computer model to meet their theory... you don't need to stretch your imagination at all to see that...

[LARED]

42. What do you think they would have testing the steel for?

They were interested if there was steel not meeting specifications. Not if steel had some evidence of CD? They don't need that anyway. Evidence of CD would be all over the place; in the dust, in the video, in eye witness interviews. None of those has provided any indication of CD.

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Any *real* investigation looks at ALL possibilities...

I know, I know... everyone *saw the attacks* on TV.. planes hit buildings.. buildings fell... hours later another building fell, while others that were between the falling buildings, remained standing.

Yeah, I'd want to rule out 100% the possiblity of CD. You can't do that if you don't investigate it... but at least NIST looks like they're going to look into it:

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. "
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (at the bottom of the page)

I would just *want* to know, and be 100% positive that it wasn't CD. Is that asking too much?

[LARED]

44. Exactly how does one rule out

100% the possibility of CD?

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. By testing all damaged steel for explosive residue?

:shrug:

[LARED]

46. You do not have to test steel for explosive residue.

If explosives were used the residue would have been all over the place.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. Why would it be all over the place? n/t

[LARED]

57. Because explosives, well explode, leaving trace amounts

all over the place.

[eomer]

58. But isn't Dr. Jones finding just such traces in the dust samples he's examining?

Are the iron-rich spherules he found in the WTC dust samples what you would expect as residue from thermite applied to steel?

What about the red chips found in the dust that have the same elements as thermite and that can be ignited with a fine-tipped torch? Pending further tests, is it possible that those chips are leftover unburned thermite?

If those aren't the kinds of things you would expect as residue, what would you say the residue would consist of?

How many samples of WTC dust have been examined for the presence of these artifacts, by whom, and what were the results?

Here's the paper by Dr. Jones (et al) with some of those findings:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

And here's a page with a podcast of an interview with Dr. Jones where he describes the red chips and talks again about the spherules:
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=313936

[LARED]

59. Iron rich spherules can form from a host of different

processes and are not in any way unique to thermite reactions.

The elements of thermite are very much ordinary; found in many, many products. The fact that a small chip with similar elements as thermite will burn under a torch is perfectly meaningless.

[eomer]

60. What would the residues look like then -- the residues you said would be all over the place?

You said there was no need to examine the steel for residues of thermite because the residues would be all over the place. What would they look like then, and what should we look for all over the place that obviates the need to look at the steel?

[LARED]

61. I was referring to explosives, not thermite - nt

[eomer]

62. A couple of posts earlier you said the same thing about the broader category of CD.

What do you think they would have testing the steel for?

They were interested if there was steel not meeting specifications. Not if steel had some evidence of CD? They don't need that anyway. Evidence of CD would be all over the place; in the dust, in the video, in eye witness interviews. None of those has provided any indication of CD.

Also, according to Dr. Jones (and correct him if he is wrong), explosives and thermite are not mutually exclusive categories. Super-thermite (again, according to Jones) is an explosive form of thermite.

In any event, are you now clarifying that the non-explosive form of thermite would not leave a residue all over the place? Wouldn't that put us back to where we started -- that it would have been important to test the steel for residues left by thermite?

[LARED]

67. Explosives and thermite are two different things

A reactive mixture is categorized as an explosive if its shock wave reaches a particular velocity as a result of it reaction. Without looking it up I recall an explosion is above sonic velocity. Thermite does not react fast enough to be an explosive. Not even close. So called Super thermite might reach a deflagration velocity but I doubt it could be classified as an explosive.

So if there were explosions the evidence of it to would be all over the place because the nature of explosions spread out material far and wide. Thermite or super thermite would be a local event. I understand that people cling to the lunacy Jones puts out, but his basis is far fetched and so far he has not made available where the sample came from or the conditions of the sample. The things he claims points to CD are no more than pure speculation becasue he sompletely discounts the many mundane reason to explain his "findings"

If he was acting in good faith he would make public all the information about his sample.

[eomer]

69. Isn't the distinction between "high explosives" and "low explosives"?

IN the study of weapons, a low explosive burns, but a high explosive detonates-a very different phenomenon. An initial shock compresses a high-explosive material, heating it and causing chemical decomposition. The formation of chemical products releases enormous amounts of energy in just billionths of a second. This process sustains the shock wave, which travels at supersonic velocity. All of this happens almost instantaneously to produce a blast of rapidly expanding hot gases.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Simpson99.html

Anyway, if superthermites were used then the question of how widely the resulting artifacts would be dispersed would depend not on the definition of terms but rather on the physics that result from however it was deployed. For example, water is not a high explosive but if you direct it under high pressure through a firehose then it will end up "all over the place".

Since we wouldn't know anyway whether high explosives or low explosives were used before the taking and examining of samples then the best investigative process would look both locally (examine the steel for residue) and all over the place (examine dust samples).

Regarding Jones not making available where the sample came from or the conditions of the sample, that information is right here in the paper where he discusses the tests he did on them:

Appendix
Provenance of dust samples analyzed in original work reported here.
Sample 1 was collected from inside the Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was
collected by a Ph.D. scientist on 9/14/2001, just three days after the 9/11/2001 and before any major steelcutting
operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were on-going at the time of sample collection.
Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust
that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steelcutting
operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel spheres) can be ruled out with a very high
degree of confidence. The iron-rich spheres collected in sample 1 are evidence of high-temperature melting and
violent fragmentation during the WTC destruction and dust formation.
Sample 2 was collected by Jeannette MacKinlay about a week after 9/11/2001, from inside her apartment at
113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St., New York City. WTC dust entered her apartment through two windows which
broke as the South Tower collapsed. The holes in the windows were approximately 0.5 m X 0.8 m, and the
apartment was on the fourth floor.
In both samples, elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures
distinct from that of structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S; see Figs. 3 and 4). These chemical signatures
provide additional evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up. We
have recently obtained a WTC dust sample acquired within twenty minutes of the collapse of the North Tower,
near the Brooklyn Bridge, which also shows spherules like those shown in Figs. 1-5. These spheres cannot
have originated from the later clean-up operations. Further results from our on-going investigation will be
presented in future papers. Probing alternative chemical reactions which could have produced these spherules is
beyond the scope of this paper; but further analyses of these contaminants may provide important clues
regarding the processes which generated the observed iron-rich spheres and concomitant high temperatures.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

[LARED]

75. I was looking for information that would help determine if the

spherules found were meaningful

For instance, how big were they? Were they small enough to be carried in the wind? Perhaps they were formed in the underground fires. Perhaps this type of contamination is normal in NYC. Did Jone compare his sample with an area of the city that was not contaminated with WTC dust.

Also why are there no spheroids found with a thermite composition? Why is there no thermite found in any of the samples taken from the site.

[eomer]

100. That information is in the same paper that I referred you to before.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

How big were the spherules:

The spherules found in the WTC dust were predominately iron-rich (appearing metallic) and silicates
(appearing glassy under an optical microscope). We observed spherules in a wide range of diameters, from
about 1 micron to 1.5 mm.

Did Jone compare his sample with an area of the city that was not contaminated with WTC dust:

Iron-rich spherules were also observed in studies conducted by the RJ Lee company <1> and the US Geological
Survey (USGS) <2>. In particular, a USGS report on the WTC dust provides two micrographs of “iron-rich
spheres” <3> and a “bulbous” or tear-drop-shaped silicate droplet <4> (see images below).

No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures
along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports.

The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC
dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle <1>.”
We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are
unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.

Moreover, the RJ Lee report provides provocative data regarding the abundance of observed iron-rich
spheres. A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe
spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only
0.04% <1>. As the report notes, the WTC dust has unusual identifying characteristics – in particular, the WTC
dust in this sample has nearly 150 times (5.87/0.04) the amount of iron-rich spheres as ordinary dust
(where Fe spheres can arise from micrometeorites, for example).

There are other identifying features that characterize WTC dust compared with ordinary office dust; the RJ
Lee report concludes:

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation
of spherical particles due to surface tension…”

“In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC
Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including
spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles
are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent
in typical office dust…”

“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such
as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that
accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust…”

“Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in
combination <5>.”

We agree with the RJ Lee report that the abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” is proof of
high temperatures, and that these particles are not common in normal office dust, but we do not agree that this
abundance is necessarily due to the “fire that accompanied the WTC Event”. Before drawing such a
conclusion, one must scrutinize the temperatures and other conditions needed to form these molten spheres (iron
melts at 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) while iron (III) oxide melts at 1,565 °C (2,849 °F) <6> and aluminosilicates melt
around 1,450 C <7>) and then compare with conditions reached in the WTC fires. We will turn to this task, after
considering other data which also point to anomalously high temperatures during the WTC destruction.

Note: I removed the emphasis (bold font) that was in the second quote and put my own emphasis to call out the most direct answer to your question.

[petgoat]

64. Do tell. What host of processes produce iron rich spherules?

And how ordinary are chips with iron on one side and aluminum on the other?

These OCT defenders have such creative theories!

[Ghost in the Machine]

72. You'd be able to detect explosive residue from 2 charges in *any* of the dust & debris?

I think that's quite a stretch...

[Bolo Boffin]

47. CD is already 100% ruled out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=205299&mesg_id=205310

The Blanchard PDF explains why.

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. How much explosives would have to be used before it was detected on a seismograph?

Would it be possible to blow 1 or 2 key columns in the impacted area, with the *expectation* of a "pancaking", or 'top down', collapse?

I don't see where everyone thinks it would take tons of explosives to make a controlled demolition look like it wasn't really a controlled demolition....

[Bolo Boffin]

52. The PDF explains all of this. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. Not *all* of it....

It mentions the large amount of explosives that would be needed... and detected...

I asked "How much explosives would have to be used before it was detected on a seismograph?"

Would 1 or 2 small blasts on key columns show up on a seismograph?

[SDuderstadt]

54. You'd need more than....

"one or two small blasts on key columns", Ghost. Sorry, but your question doesn't need an answer. Ask any controlled demolition expert.

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. Why would you need more than a couple of explosions on key columns?

Apparently some people believe that a little bit of debris hitting one key column, and a few random fires, were enough to drop WTC 7 ...
so yes, my question *does* need an answer.... in fact, *any* question I ask needs an answer or else I wouldn't.... you know... ASK it..

[Bolo Boffin]

55. This is what started the collapse.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

The video clip examined at the beginning of this video by Mark Roberts shows the bowing inward of the perimeter columns of the South Tower. 1 or 2 small blasts on key columns did not do that. 1 or 2 small blasts on key columns is irrelevant and a distraction because they did not happen.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. Sorry, but I don't do videos, I'm on dialup ... do you have a still of the frame that you can post?

"1 or 2 small blasts on key columns is irrelevant and a distraction because they did not happen."

Is there rock solid proof of that? A link to any conclusive tests would be greatly appreciated...

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Why do you continue to post authoritatively on a subject you can't examine all the facts of?

This is not the bowing from the South Tower, as was shown in the video I posted, but the bowing of the perimeter columns just before the North Tower fell.



"1 or 2 small blast on key columns" didn't do that. The intense fires causing the floor trusses to sag did that. The floor trusses pulled the perimeter columns inside to the point of failure, at which point the collapses of both 1 and 2 started.

[Ghost in the Machine]

77. When did asking questions, and for more information, become "posting authoritatively"?

What does a crooked picture prove? That someone took a picture from an angle with their head/neck and/or the camera cocked to the side?

Honestly, my focus is more on WTC 7........... I've already stated before that I can buy the Twin Towers coming down on their own. As for WTC 7? I haven't seen *anything* yet that could make me 100% rule out CD...

What was that little meme you liked to post? "Physical evidence trumps witness recall", or something to that effect? Yet in a different thread you posted firefighter testimony to convince me that WTC 7 was majorly damaged. Remember that?

"Go back to the top link and read how the firefighters describe that building. "Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x202816#202979

Funny that the physical evidence (photos & video) don't support these claims, huh? No one has posted a picture or video of WTC 7 "fully engulfed", or anything else claimed in there, have they?

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Do you have any physical evidence that contradicts the firefighter testimony?

I'm speaking of the way that the seismograph evidence contradicts the idea that people heard actual explosive devices going off. It's not that it doesn't support their accounts. The spikes would have been there if explosive devices were used to cut the columns. The seismograph evidence (the physical evidence) contradicts and thus trumps the eyewitness accounts (or to be precise, contradicts what people make out of the eyewitness accounts).

Almost every video of 7 World Trade on fire is filmed from the windward side. Steve Spak's video is from the west, and from the volume of smoke pumping out of 7 World Trade, it's no wonder that people were describing that building as fully involved. None of the video and pictorial evidence contradicts the accounts of the firefighters. It doesn't support it fully, but it doesn't rule it out either.

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. Fair enough... n/t

[hack89]

56. What about all the additional explosives used to pulverize the concrete

after all, we are continuously told by some that the KE of the buildings could not have possibly have done this.

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. What additional explosives? Do you not understand "1 or 2 explosions on key columns"?

I can't help what you're continuously told, but if you've ever been told that by me, please point it out..

Thanks

Ghost

[hack89]

79. You are deviating from the truther script

It can be confusing at times - sorry.

[Ghost in the Machine]

80. Yeah... I don't follow *anyone's* lead or script...

I like making my own mind up by studying the available information. Like I said before, I can buy into the story of the Twin Towers coming down on their own. On the other hand, I can see a scenario that doesn't require a shitload of explosives, either. Not like everyone makes it out to be, like having the whole building wired.

If someone was going to fake a terrorist attack and knock down some buildings, they wouldn't want it to look like a CD. They wouldn't use conventional methods, would they?

[SDuderstadt]

81. Ghost, face it....

EVERY controlled demolition asked states it would take massive amounts of explosives and months of preparation to bring down the towers. Google Brent Blanchard of Implosionworld. He explains it very completely. It's a red herring, Ghost.

[greyl]

82. Logic dictates that they WOULD use conventional methods.

Why not frame a terrorist group for destroying the integrity of the buildings with conventional explosives? Then, the conventional explosions wouldn't have to be hidden or disguised and subsequently covered up by thousands of witnesses and rescue workers.
CD is just a really stupid scenario. I understand how people may believe it's true after only a few hours of researching 9/11 Truth Industry websites, but damn.

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. Then they would have to explain the security failures that allowed terrorists access

to the buildings for months without being detected, so your logic is flawed, IMHO...

Remind me.... *who* was in charge of security until the day of the attacks? That kind of security failure wouldn't have gone over too well, would it?

[petgoat]

84. We must keep in mind that it's possible that al Qaeda blew up the buildings

and the whole coverup is just because it's so embarrassing to the
Bush family.

[greyl]

86. Lordy.

Bush inc. is covering up real evidence that implicates al Qaeda, but manufacturing other evidence which should be even more embarassing to them. That's a damn silly idea.

Where's the evidence that Al Qaeda blew up the buildings with devices other than airplanes? Nowhere. edit: and why not implicate Iraq directly?

[petgoat]

89. The evidence that someone blew up the buildings:

Molten steel in the basement
pyroclastic dust clouds
180,000 tons of concrete powdered
carpets and steel floor pans smithereened
explosive ejections of building material
reports of explosions from 118 first responders
symmetrical collapse
free fall speed

[greyl]

95. That's evidence that you've stopped learning about 9/11 years ago.

"Molten steel in the basement"

If there was molten steel, there are other explanations consistent with plane crashes and the fires. What was described as molten steel was likely a mixture of molten metals. Controlled demos don't result in molten steel.

"pyroclastic dust clouds"

There were no pyroclastic dust clouds. Please check into what pyroclastic means. What you're describing as pyroclastic dust clouds is thoroughly explainable using a solid understanding of the physics involved with such a huge structure and the enormous forces involved.

"180,000 tons of concrete powdered"

Are you saying more concrete was powdered than is explainable by the collapse alone? Please show me the math and explain the logic.

"carpets and steel floor pans smithereened"

Smithereened isn't exactly a technical term. However, what you're describing is explained by the collapse alone.

"explosive ejections of building material"

Explained by the forces during the collapse alone.

"reports of explosions from 118 first responders"

Totally explained by what we would expect during a huge office building fire after a jet hit it.
Transformers, batteries, people describing what they heard as explosions that weren't actually explosions.

"symmetrical collapse"

It fell as symmetrical as expected. Gravity goes pretty much straight down.

"free fall speed"

You've really packed in all the red herrings, haven't you.

[petgoat]

99. WE've been over all this before, greyl

1. Molten steel. The witnesses said it was molten steel. Show me one who said it was a mixture
of something else. Dr. Abolhassan Asteneh told PBS that he saw MELTED GIRDERS.

2. pyroclastic dust clouds. They look just like the clouds coming out of a volcano.

3. Are you saying more concrete was powdered than is explainable by the collapse alone?

Absolutely. The collapse can not explain the total pulverization of the concrete.

4. smithereened steel floor pans is not explainable by gravitational collapse. Please explain
the mechanism for destroying every piece of 200 acres of floor pans.

5. explosive ejections of building materials are not explained by the collapse forces. Compressed
air blows out ALL the windows together, not just the center ones.

6. Explosions. People were thrown up against walls. That doesn't happen from batteries.

7. Symmetry. Nobody disputes that gravity goes straight down. Asymmetrical damage does not
lead to symmetrical collapse.

8. Free fall speed. NIST says it was free fall speed. Read the FAQs.

[greyl]

101. Yeah, no kidding. That's why I was slightly hesitant to respond to the debunked crap you posted. nt

[petgoat]

104. ! ! ! Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh told PBS he saw melted girders at the WTC. Are you calling him a liar?

He's the expert cited by the media on the collapse of that elevated freeway
in Oakland, CA.

He's a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. You want his phone number?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here <at the Oakland freeway>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html


Are you calling NIST a liar? NIST said the top of the building came down through the rest
of it at freefall speed.

Do we need to go through the list point by point?


Give it up greyl. You guys are done.

[Ghost in the Machine]

92. "and why not implicate Iraq directly?"

Were there any well known, well funded terrorist groups operating out of Iraq?

They had to tie Osama to Saddam somehow... easier to do than fabricating a whole new terrorist network... right?

[greyl]

97. Thanks for responding to a minor portion of my post. nt

[petgoat]

96. They couldn't implicate Iraq. The UN would have busted them. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. Too bad they didn't keep their *other* embarrassment (the chimp) covered up...

9-11 wouldn't have happened with Al Gore in the White House...

[petgoat]

91. I used to have a schtick about how 9/11 couldn't happen under Gore

He would have implemented Clarke's plan to go after al Qaeda
The nation would thus have been on alert for reprisals
He wouldn't have ignored the warnings
blah blah blah



Then someone pointed out that if 9/11 had happened under Gore
in such a manner that he was killed, Liebermann would have
been President.

And then I wasn't so sure that 9/11 couldn't happen under Gore.

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. I've thought about the Gore/Lieberman thing before, too..

even as far as to think that Gore would have been assassinated for Lieberman to move up. Who would have been VP then? Would LIEberman have shed his snake skin then, and aligned with the neocons?

I've been down a lot of the dark alleys in my mind over this. You *really* have to be able to think like a criminal, and understand the thought processes. I've lived on the dark side.. I know the criminal mind intimately...

[greyl]

85. Oh, that's hilarious. 'They'd have to explain security failures.'

With the entire intelligence and military community in on it, shouldn't that be relatively fairly easy? I know your imagination is better than that. How about creating an Iraqi security guard or two to be in on it, for one?

And what's this about needing months of access? If months of access to 3 buildings were necessary to execute the theory you're entertaining, where is the evidence of it?

When I was using the term "conventional explosives", I wasn't meaning conventional controlled demolition, I was meaning big bombs and such, like we're used to seeing terrorists and military use(similar to the ones used at the WTC in 1993 that killed six people and injured over a thousand). No unexplainable lapse in security would have been necessary to drive several vehicles with high explosives and incendiaries into the buildings, would there?

Why planes plus controlled demolition? It's way too risky, and again, doesn't make sense. What if one or both of the planes missed the towers?

[Ghost in the Machine]

87. "Why planes plus controlled demolition?" You partly answered yourself...

Two reasons:

1.) In case the planes missed (which you mentioned above), or

2.) To *ensure* maximum damage/carnage

I see your meaning about the explosives.

"No unexplainable lapse in security would have been necessary to drive several vehicles with high explosives and incendiaries into the buildings, would there?"

I'm guessing they thought it would be hard to get trucks in after the planes hit? :shrug:

BTW: *Any* terrorist group worth their salt would have had 20 guys outside with machine guns, mowing down the occupants as they fled the building.... :evilgrin:



just sayin'....

[greyl]

90. No, I don't think my question was clear to you.

If one of the planes missed and the target building was totally undamaged, how would they explain the explosions? They'd have to be ready to pin it on Iraq or Al Qaeda. That means, they wouldn't have wired the building for 3 months, they would have used conventional explosives just like Al Qaeda used in the WTC in '93.
There's no logic to the theory you're entertaining, and even less evidence.

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. They would explain the explosions as a suicide bombing, maybe?

If you remember, my original question was about 1 or 2 charges placed on key columns. Maybe a little bit of C-4 on a the core columns in a certain area. The core could be compromised easily, with access through the elevator shafts.

If the plane missed and they blew the building up... in the upper floors, they could blame it on briefcase bombs or suicide bombers..

Hey, even if none of this *did* happen, at least we've gone down that road and had discussion on it and proved it wrong... right? I've never seen anyone discuss a theory of only a few charges on a few key columns... it could work if it caused the same type of collapse initiation. Compromise the top, make it fall into and destroy the rest of the building...

[petgoat]

93. 20 guys outside with machine guns.

Right A few bombs could have destroyed the stairways
and prevented people from evacuating.

[hack89]

No - it was a combination of structural damage from 767 and fires.

without the structural damage the towers may very well have survived. Why do you always want to ignore this not so minor fact?

[petgoat]

34. There's no evidence of fatal structural damage--except that the buildings came down.

And that evidence, as you well know, is consistent with other
hypotheses as well.

NIST plugged realistic parameters for structural damage into their
computer model, and got no collapse.

They had to plug in the most extreme assumptions possible to get
the desired results.

Do you really believe 10 core columns were severed by the port
wing and the engine of flight 175--after the wing had already been
shredded by going through the perimeter wall?

Plus, the diagrams and animations are highly misleading. That
port wing was spread out over three floors. It didn't wipe out
all the columns in the corner of the core on one floor as the
diagrams imply. The damage was spread out over several floors,
maximizing the structure's natural ability to redistribute the
stresses.

[hack89]

36. Ok - so two fully ladened 767 entered the WTC

and did not come out the outer side. The only thing that could stop them was the tower cores. And there was no structural damage? OK

[petgoat]

49. "no structural damage" = straw man argument not worthy of reply.

They weren't fully laden. They only had 10,000 gallons of fuel aboard,
less than half a tank. And they had remarkably few passengers aboard
too.

Some have remarked on the obvious steps the attackers took to minimize
casualties. This leads me to suspect that a botched op killed more that
they intended. That the fires in WTC2 were going out required an early
detonation, before planned evacuations could be carried out.

[tetedur]

78. Then there is also this reason.

According to LDEO in 2001 seismic recordings happened at 8:46:26. However, the 9/11 Commission calculated impact of AA11 at 8:46:40, 14 seconds later. Again LDEO recorded a seismic event at 9:02:54. The 9/11 Commission says UA 175 impacted at 9:03:11, 17 seconds later.

Please read this pdf for more details about this discrepancy.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

[petgoat]

63. You never answered the question, bolo. You used the word "fact"

In what way can you say that the gravity driven collapse is a fact?
In what way was that established?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. That is a factually inaccurate post, petgoat. My post #6 establishs the fact of no CD.

I see you down there touting superthermite as an explosive. Thus, it falls under Blanchard's statement.

There is no such thing as Hush-a-Boom controlled demolition.

[hack89]

17. Why didn't truthers do their own tests

on all the dust that blanketed Manhattan? It would have been very simple to detect explosive residue. After all, I keep hearing what brilliant scientists and engineers are in the truth movement.

[petgoat]

18. Dr. Jones has done tests. He's found elements consistent with the

signature of thermate, he's found microspheres of once-molten
iron, he's found unburned chips of nano-thermate and he's found
partially burned chips of thermate.

[hack89]

19. No he didn't

thermate does not have a unique chemical trace.

the nanothermate claim is new to me - do you have a link?

[eomer]

31. Here's the super-thermite link:

Dr. Steven Jones being interviewed on 4 March, 2008:
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=313936

The unexploded super-thermite discussion starts at 1:14:26 and goes to about 1:19:00.

[LARED]

25. Do you make this up

or do you just swallow any story that fits your imagination?

nano-thermate and he's found partially burned chips of thermate.

LOL

[petgoat]

105. Do you ever post anything of a factual nature, or restrict yourself to sowing FUD? nt

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!