Two new chapters of my on-line book. See links below.
August 27, 2008 1. NIST scientists admitted that the fuel loading in WTC-7 was similar to that of the nearby twin towers. This means that, on average, the offices in WTC-7 had only enough fuel (i.e., carpets, desks, office dividers etc) to support a fire for about 20 minutes.
What is more, the steel columns in WTC-7 were protected with foam insulation rated to give at least 3 hours of fire protection. The steel beams in the floors had similar protection rated for 2 hours. How then did a 20-minute office fire cause thermal expansion and the catastrophic collapse claimed by NIST?
2. The pre-collapse photos and videos of WTC-7 do not support NIST's claim that the fires were extensive. On the contrary, the videos/photos strongly suggest that the fires were rather minor and were limited to a few floors.
3. NIST acknowledged in its 2005 report that WTC-1 and WTC-2 survived the plane impacts, despite serious structural damage, and would have stood indefinitely, despite the fires, but for the fact that the impacts jarred loose SFRM foam and wallboard insulation. This allegedly exposed the steel columns and floor trusses to the fires.
Yet, in the case of WTC-7 there was no plane crash, hence, no violent impact to jar loose the insulation. For this reason all of the insulation in WTC-7 was 100% intact. The steel in the building was fully protected throughout and, therefor, would have been unaffected by ordinary office fires lasting no more than about 20 minutes. Obviously the fires had nothing to do with the total, symmetrical and near-free fall collapse of this 47-story steel skyscraper.
4. Nor do existing videos of the WTC-7 collapse on 9/11 support NIST's collapse model. As Gage and the independent structural engineers pointed out, a progressive collapse means that failing columns will, in turn, pull over other nearby columns. This implies a gradual and asymmetric process, starting at the point of initiation, which then spreads throughout the structure. Yet, the videos clearly show that the collapse of WTC-7 happened everywhere all at once. The collapse was total, symmetric, and occurred at nearly free fall speed.
Also, a fire-caused collapse would have followed the path of least resistance, that is, would have occurred in a random and haphazard manner. Yet, the video evidence clearly shows that WTC-7 did just the opposite. As it collapsed it followed the path of greatest resistance. The steel framework of the building, comprising 40,000 tons of inter-connected structural columns and beams, literally fell through itself into its own footprint, and did so as if there were no resistance whatsoever.
Gage and the independent engineers insisted that to explain this, many columns had to fail simultaneously. This strongly suggested that the collapse was, in fact, a controlled demolition.
Numerous eyewitness accounts and a considerable amount of physical evidence also supports this conclusion. Multiple witnesses reported seeing molten steel in the wreckage. Witnesses also reported the subsequent removal of huge lumps of slag from the bottom of the pile. Several different investigations found tiny spheres of iron in the dust. Moreover, thermal imaging from above conducted by NASA five days after 9/11 recorded surface temperatures of 1,376°F. No doubt, temperatures under the pile were much higher. All of this evidence confirms that something melted steel in WTC-7. Yet, ordinary office fires obviously could not do this. Taken together, the evidence points to the use of high temperature explosives.
5. Gage also disputed NIST's assertion that there were no reports of explosions. In his statement Gage identified numerous witnesses who heard explosions before WTC-7 collapsed. Some even reported hearing a countdown. Ryan also pointed out that incendiary thermite and thermate explosions are not nearly as loud as blasts caused by more common explosives, such as C-4 and RDX.
6. The panelists announced the discovery of yet another chemical residue, namely, 1,3-Diphenylpropane
Evidence of faked videos of jets flying into the building
(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system," has recently explained in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed," which is archived here While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.
2) The way in whch the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.logspot.
(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions.
The debris often cited in support of the existence of real planes has itself been repeatedly challenged. The engine found on the sidewalk in New York appears to have come from a Boeing 737, not a 767.
A piece of debris from an American Airlines crash found at the Pentagon has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995.
Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed that each of these planes had thousands of uniquely identifiable component parts, not a single one of which has been recovered from any of the four "crash sites."
To see videos click on these links or cut and paste to your search engine.
http://uk.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
============ US. Senator Max Cleland Former US Senator Mike Gravel - AK Gen. Wesley Clark Louis Freeh Rep. Curt Weldon Major General Albert Stubblebine Charlie Sheen Willie Nelson http://www.patriots 9/11 Questions Still Smoldering http://www.allenrol
29 August 2008
by: Robert Parry, Consortium News
No comments:
Post a Comment