Some 911 question answered
People who are starting to doubt the official account of 9/11 have questions. A friend of mine recently wrote with a few of his own. Hopefully, the email below (which took me a full day to complete) will be useful to others as well.
>there's a NIST guy on video (Alex Jones has it on his site) in what
> appears to be a college classroom talking about their findings. In response
> to an audience questions, he says that he had no knowledge of molten metal.
> Yes, I'm aware of there were eyewitness accounts of it and one even made it
> on to 60 Minutes, but NIST claims to have interviewed over 1,000 people for
> their report. How come this expert has never heard of it?
I'd love to know what goes through these guys' minds when they say things like "no knowledge of." It's like saying "no evidence of explosives" when there is eyewitness testimony, video evidence, audio evidence, and physical evidence. ...but just say "I've seen no evidence" or "I have no knowledge of" and it supposedly goes away. ...anyway, from the NIST report itself (regarding Molten Metal.)
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)-who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards-found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
This statement is entirely different from "we have no knowledge of molten metal." To me, it translates something like this:
We know jet fuel couldn't have caused it and we know the debris burning in the buildings couldn't have caused it, so therefore (rather than consider if something else might have been involved - which doesn't fit our story) we simply deem it irrelevant. (Wow, now that is what I call a quality investigation!)
That said, Steven Jones has actually analyzed samples of the (previously) molten metal. (Provided to him from multiple sources with access to the debris - taken from "memorial parks." ) Not only does that support its existence, but chemical analysis supports his theory of "thermate" being used to cut the beams from which the "molten debris" was taken. (The authorities have denied using thermate to cut the steel during the clean up operation, so that excuse is out.) If the NIST guy wanted "knowledge" of molten metal, he wouldn't have to go too far. Steven Jones could give him a sample or two to look at.
> I'm also curious, if explosive devices were used, what accounts for the
> molten metal? Do normal building demolitions result in molten metal that
> burns for days?
Explosives (RDX) might account for partly evaporated steel beams...but I've never seen anything about pools of "molten metal" after a controlled demolition. Only something like thermite / thermate explains that. (At least at this point.) Clearly, using thermite / thermate to cut through the massive core columns would greatly lesson the amount of explosives needed to finish the job.
> On the other hand, Towers 1 & 2 story is not as neat. It seems to me that
> the trouble with comparison with other towers has to do with comparing
> apples to oranges. The Spain building was shorter. The construction style
> was different.
Forgive the "Cut and Paste" but here is part of an exchange I had with another author on this topic. If you do not feel it adequately addresses the issue, let me know.
The Madrid building had massive concrete columns which prevented it from collapsing. -For that reason, it's not a valid comparison, and could potentially damage the case.
The rebar reinforced concrete columns are LESS structurally sound. . ...or to put it another way: If the reinforced concrete columns could stand during the collapse, the massive solid steel support columns of the towers could have done the same twice over.
He wrote: The point was that the concrete columns are not comparable because they are not affected by fire and cannot melt. That makes it a pointless comparison. When David Griffin and others bring up the Madrid fire, it is not a valid comparison, and it opens him up to scathing criticism (which none of us need more of).
I'll try again to explain my argument. There were no fires at the base of the towers (that we know of.) Therefore, the core columns that ran up through the structure, all the way up to the impact area, could not have "melted" by the "impact area fires." So the common complaint (about the invalid comparison) is, in my view, invalid.
Restated: The core steel columns acted as a structural support (superior to the concrete columns in the Madrid fire.) If the core of the Madrid building was able to survive collapsing spans, so too should the far stronger (unmolested) core of the towers. The only steel columns that we can consider "vulnerable" to the heat of the flames would be those directly exposed or in the immediate area of the impact zone. And even then, there is no evidence to support the exposed columns reached temperatures sufficient to cause them to fail. In fact, there is evidence that clearly refutes that assertion.
--he never replied to the above.
> And the NIST claim simply says, that the fire softened the steel structure
> and caused it to bow and flex the walls. The fire-proofing on the steel was
> spray-on and had not been kept up, so rivets were exposed to the heat. Even
> though the metal should've held, once collapse initiated the rivets didn't
> hold up to the pressure that was dropped on them. The sprinkler system was
> broken and provided no help.
> Now, you suggest that the part of the buildings affected should've fallen
> off. That's a very compelling argument and hard to refute. But could the
> bowing and flexing, combined with rivet failure, cause the weight of the
> structure above the crash to CRUSH what was below it?
There are a couple things that need answered there, and a couple ways in which to present those answers. I will go with what I hope is the simplest. First, it is important to have a basic understanding of the towers design. (It isn't complicated.) If they were standing today, we'd say:
There are three major components that make up the towers. There are the inner support columns (the "core columns") there are the outer support columns (the perimeter columns) and there are the floor spans that stretch between the core columns and perimeter columns. So again:
a) 47 enormous core columns, tied together to form what amounts to a thick spine running up the center of the tower.
b) 240 perimeter columns. These are what form the visible exterior of the tower. 60 columns per side. (Plus, 4 "corner" columns; 244 total.)
c) The floor spans that tie into the core columns, and then go out and tie into the perimeter columns.
Pictures for Reference
Here is a good picture (Some of what you are seeing in the middle are elevator shafts, stair wells, etc. but it gives you the right idea.)
Here is a picture of some perimeter columns (6 straight ahead, with a "corner column" on your left.)
Here is a picture of a floor span "tied into" perimeter columns on your right (cannot see, but it is tied into core columns on left.)
Here is a picture of the HUGE Core Columns (on left) with a floor span visibly attached to the core and perimeter columns (straight ahead.)
The first thing I'd like to mention is there is no evidence the steel reached temperatures sufficient to "soften it."
From my article:
"Of the columns from the fire floors NIST studied, "only three columns had evidence the steel reached temperatures above 482 degrees Fahrenheit," and none of the examined core columns had evidence of reaching even that temperature." And Now is a good time to remind ourselves of the scientific experiments conducted on steel-framed buildings mentioned earlier: "no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of the tests-"
Again, what is important here is that they have no physical evidence to prove the data used for their theory. Whether there was fireproofing or not, whether the sprinkler systems were working or not; in the end they don't determine the outcome. What matters is: WHAT TEMPERATURE did the steel reach? Regarding the NIST study, this is the most recent information I have found.
NISTS final analysis of the Perimeter and Core columns:
Perimeter Columns: Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC
Regarding the Core Columns: "their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC"
Regarding All Samples: "NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC"
So the "initiation of collapse" (and the numbers that were "plugged in" to support their theory) are already unsupported by the evidence. They might as well have just said the steel reached temperatures of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit...it would have made their "collapse initiation" that much easier to prove. If they're OK with having no physical evidence to back their claims (and ignoring evidence that specifically undermines them) why not claim 2,400 degrees? No physical evidence to support it; but who needs it?
Now remember, we have multiple eyewitness accounts of "molten steel" running through the fallen debris. This is not accounted for.
We have actual samples of the molten metal that, if the sources are reliable, proves its existence.
We have multiple accounts of explosions (police, firefighters, media, regular people) not accounted for.(See Barry Jennings' Testimony on WTC 7 here)
We have audio and video evidence of explosions, not accounted for.
But beyond all that; we have an even bigger problem: How did the falling debris manage to obliterate 80 floors of perfectly intact tower (south tower) and 93 floors of intact tower (north tower) as if NONE of the primary components (Core Columns, Perimeter Columns, Floor Spans) stood in its way? The structure beneath the impact area was NOT damaged. Simply stated, what we witnessed violates the laws of physics. But don't take my word for it; take a physics professors':
The NIST team fairly admits that their report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached." (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official "pre-collapse theory."
-Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum - one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors -and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case - somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans. Peer-reviewed papers which further analyze the WTC skyscraper collapses, by Dr. Frank Legge, Professor Kenneth Kuttler, Gordon Ross and Kevin Ryan, are recommended and available here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed. Gordon Ross argues that when conservation of energy and momentum are factored in, then a gravity-driven collapse will be arrested, so that only a partial collapse of the Tower would occur (see http://www.journalof911studies.com/, Gordon Ross). The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
-Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they follow such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an "open and thorough" investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)
> But why bring the Twin Towers down? That's an additional layer of complexity
> that could've gone woefully wrong? If you're going to commit a detailed
> crime, then wouldn't you choose a method that's as simple as possible, that
> minimizes potential for detection, and involves the fewest number of
> individuals? Everything that was needed to rouse America, steal our
> liberties, and take us to un-Constitutional wars happened with four
> hi-jacked planes, three of which were crashed into buildings occupied by
> people. Why the extra, grandiose effort of explosives?
Again, a couple things I'd like to comment on:
First, I honestly believe these people thought (in accordance with everything they've gotten away with in the past) that they could cover up anything so long as they could control the information. ...and that specifically was their undoing. I don't believe they realized (although they might now) that they have lost their information monopoly.
Consider this fact: If it wasn't for the Internet, there is absolutely no way in hell any of this information would have ever gained any traction at all. (25 years from now, maybe. But this soon; no way.)
All of the talking points were set; all of the explanations were "easy to understand", the media lined up and fed it to the public and it was devoured without question. I'm ashamed to admit that I probably wouldn't have ever questioned "the official account" (not at that point in my life) had I not discovered some footage of building 7 online. I remember thinking: "I never heard of this? Is this real?...how come this was never brought up? How can they keep saying "airplanes and jet fuel" when that building wasn't affected by either?" -I started poking around and as I discovered more and more information that was equally damaging to the official MSM dialogue, I realized it could not possibly be an accident these other pieces of information were not being discussed. Suppressing the information, in my view, was clearly an intentional act of deception.
To this day, how many people still have never heard of building 7? (Let alone all the other problems with the official account...) I can't tell you how many times (3 - 4 years ago) I had arguments like this online:
Poster1: "Ya man, it was the jet fuel that brought the buildings down."
My reply: WTC7 Wasn't hit by any planes or burned with any jet fuel.
Poster2: "What are you, an idiot, the planes tore into those buildings man and then the jet fuel ate em up...everybody seen it"
My Reply: I'm NOT talking about the towers, I'm talking about BUILDING 7. It was not hit by any planes; no jet fuel, yet it collapsed.
Poster 1: "Ya, OK, no planes hit the buildings. You're obviously a retard who thinks aliens are running the planet."
Poster 2: "Ya, this guy probably thinks the moon landing never happened."
This would go on, post after post (with countless people chiming in...not just "poster 1 and poster 2.") Droves of people endlessly parroting what they'd been told and completely missing what I was trying to point out.
If it would have been a matter of them going out and buying a book to "understand what I was saying" (instead of just clicking on a link) it would have never happened. And as I said: To this day the media still doesn't talk about the most damning evidence. How, if not through the Internet, would you have heard of building 7? ABC? FOX? Nearly 6 years after the fact, they've only recently begun speaking about "alternate information," and that is only to demonize the people bringing it forward. (Ignoring it didn't work, so now they're trying to use ridicule to keep people from ever looking at it. "Only super-crazy holocaust deniers would dare consider such things." ...but it obviously isn't working. The more "weak and crazy" they imply the information is, the more credibility the MSM loses when people finally see something like building 7.)
To your question about "why" they would destroy the towers; I (and others) can only speculate. There are a handful of ideas floating around but unfortunately, to a sane person, none of them can be expected to make sense. I mean, why (in the Northwoods Document) did the government devise a plan that required filling a plane with 200 CIA / Government passengers (under "carefully prepared aliases") landing it at an airforce base, replacing it with a remote controlled drown, chasing the drone with a fake Cubin mig, transmitting a fake mayday signal, and then blowing the plane up and reporting it shot down? You'd think there would be an easier way to get their war than that. But as I've often said about the whys:
"Why does a person decide they're going to abduct a child, rape the child, cut the child's head off, and keep it in their freezer? I'm less concerned with why sick people do what they do; I'm more concerned with whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove they've done what they're suspected of...if you've got that, you can worry about the whyslater."
UPDATE: For more info, check out: Fire initiated collapse, primary arguments against