Findcate

by Prof Jones

(911 Blogger)Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established

peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we

have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted

for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say

that we have ublished in the literature,?a major step in a nascent

line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to

science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their

journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the

editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters

chastising them?)

The paper is here:

http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm

(Click on 搚ear 2008?then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

(HTML version below. -rep.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an 搊pen

e-journal.?TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may

download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and

engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was

chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do

Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?

In this Letter, we emphasize oints of agreement?with FEMA and

NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course,

we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a

public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the

title ?but then read morehe paper only six pages long:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley

Approaching this as oints of Agreement?is NEW, I believe

(obviously some 搊lder?quotes are cited in this new context) and we

hope this will be a fruitful approach! Mechanical engineer Tony

Szamboti and I are the 揷orresponding authors,?the ones people are

invited to write to with comments.

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the

discussion has reached a new level ?JREF抏rs and others may attack,

but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal,

those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper.

It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise

in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather

than addressing the science ?that would not surprise me.

Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:

揧ou, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple

task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an

article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or

more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your

article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil

engineers?To date, no one has been willing to submit an article — at

least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement

advocates, no one has been able to mention one…?/blockquote>

Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please

send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge

with him. You might note that the paper is published in a echnical

journal [one of those] in civil engineering,?to use his own words,

which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature

(e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987),

and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very

significant step in the history.

Further in the spirit of building bridges, I抎 like to quote from

Prof. Fetzer who wrote today ?and I agree: 揑 would appreciate it?if

those who are reaching out to the public would show a degree of

appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these things

were done? I believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less

disrespect for one another.?Agreed! In this paper, the authors are

both reaching out to the public (most can read this Letter with

understanding, I think) AND seeking to progress in figuring out how the

buildings were destroyed?

Now let work together to unify the 9/11 truth movement and show

some mutual respect, shall we? Suggest we seek a focus on getting NIST

(or other technical people) to work with us in doing a thorough and

proper investigation which will include release of NIST-held photos AND

the NFPA-921-mandated search for hermite residues? [Hint- good time

to read the paper if you disagree or don know really what I抦 talking

about here.]

Finally, I should note that the editor that we worked with was

polite and professional throughout the process. We hope others, in

their responses, will maintain that decorum. In the final analysis, all

THREE reviewers approved publication!

Time to celebrate, and move forward together.

Note: another blog will discuss the journal chosen and the Letter

format (as opposed to a typical rticle format?with methods, results

and discussion). Also, I will take note of your comments to this

announcement of a formal publication in a peer-reviewed civil

engineering journal!

HTML version (please note any hyperlink errors in the comments area).

From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley

Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay

out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center

on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for

productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas

where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time

countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.

INTRODUCTION

On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center

(WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction of these high-rises at

near free-fall speeds ensued within two hours, and another high-rise

which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later

at 5:20 p.m.

The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 揇etermine why and how

WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft

and why and how WTC 7 collapsed?1

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was acting with a

similar motivation in their earlier study of these tragic collapses.2

NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the

specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited

approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal

here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating

those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA. Understanding

the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center

will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for

people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their

lives trying to save others.

DISCUSSION

1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue

FEMA: he specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the

building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total

diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the

best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further

research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue?2

FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the

47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane,

collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We

certainly agree that FEMA best firebased hypothesis as only a low

probability of occurrence.?NIST final report on WTC 7 has been long

delayed and is eagerly awaited.3 Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.

2. Withstanding Jet Impact

FEMA: he WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental

impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport厰 2

NIST: 揃oth WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact,

standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with

structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable

reserve capacity?4

Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: he 110-story

towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole

the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial

aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur??sup>5

John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was

interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North

Tower:

We looked at every possible thing we could think of

that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane

hitting the side, said John Skilling, head structural engineer?

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State

Building [which did not collapse], Skilling’s people did an analysis

that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that

all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There

would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, he said.

The building structure would still be there.

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn’t think a

single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to

a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and

even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

匒lthough Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are

people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a

structure like the Trade Center down.

I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of

work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with

explosives, I would bet that he could do it.6

Thus, Skilling team showed that a commercial jet would not bring

down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse

when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert

using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in

agreement.

3. Pancake Theory Not Supported

NIST: 揘IST findings do not support the ancake theory?of

collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor

systems in the WTC towers?Thus, the floors did not fail progressively

to cause a pancaking phenomenon?3

Agreed: the ancake theory of collapse?is incorrect and should be

rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA

report and promoted in the documentary hy the Towers Fell?produced

by NOVA.7

The ancake theory of collapse?is strongly promoted in a Popular

Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9

We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the ancake theory?is not

scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions

regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

4. Massive Core Columns

NIST: 揂s stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads?4

he hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and

thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft

impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time梕nabling large

numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely?10

acific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the

closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings

their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles,

Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up

the core?The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity

loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from

three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.?he

core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were

loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft

impact…. the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20%

of their capacity before the aircraft impact?11

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included assive?
interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition

to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much

of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the

false notion that the Towers were ollow tubes?with the floors

supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide

acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor

asserted, he structural design of the towers was unique in that the

supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the

walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a

tube厰.12

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial

load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns ?and on

this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial

load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns ?and on

this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

5. Essentially in Free Fall

NIST: [Question:] 揌ow could the WTC towers collapse in only 11

seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) ?speeds that approximate that of

a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air

resistance)??[Answer:] 匒s documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR

1, these collapse times show that: 搮 the structure below the level of

collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building

mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the

downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity

of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of

deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation

provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the

falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially

in free fall, as seen in videos?3

We agree with some of this, that the building 揷ame down essentially

in free fall, as seen in videos.?This is an important starting point.

(Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the

exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings 揷ame down

essentially in free fall?seems correct when accelerations are viewed,

for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14

Further, we agree with NIST that he stories below the level of

collapse initiation provided little resistance?to the fall ?but we

ask ?how could that be? NIST mentions 揺nergy of deformation?which

for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they

need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to

claim that the 搃ntact structure?below would not significantly slow

the motion.

Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in

glibly treating the remarkable 揻ree fall?collapse of each Tower,

namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means

that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow

the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of

deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and

Momentum must both be conserved.)

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving

the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their

analysis.13, 14

NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve

complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the

material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative

explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics.

We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall

destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and,

therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete

collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST

calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without

explosives.

We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of

Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three

WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that

are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these

near-free-fall events.

6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure

NIST: 揘IST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to

conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses

like those in the WTC towers? All four test specimens sustained the

maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing?The

Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in

the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling

issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September

11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially

different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the

[empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was

capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a

substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any

given location on September 11?4

We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four

russes like those in the WTC towers?survived the fire-endurance

testing ithout collapsing.?We also agree that he fires in the

towers on September 11 ?were substantially different from the

conditions in the test furnaces;?the test furnaces were hotter and

burned longer. NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in

an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse initiation.

As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence supporting the

concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests.

On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings

should not have completely collapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of

cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has

never occurred.

But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern,

steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an

uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly

what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings

like it around the country? Although the fireproofing was intended to

withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings

the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings

have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other

buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite

suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.15

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for

a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever

collapsed from fire?The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire

in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was

repaired and returned to service.16

Yet three such high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7)

completely collapsed on a single day, 9/11/2001, and could not be

returned to service. There is much left to learn here.

7. Fires of Short Duration

NIST: he initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes?4

揂t any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures

near 1,000 癈 was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the

calculated temperatures were near 500 癈 or below?4

We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and patchy, how

did both towers experience sudden-onset failure of structural steel

over a broad area in each tower and how could the collapses of all

three WTC high-rises have been so symmetrical and complete?13, 14, 17 We seek discussion on these points.

8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel

NIST: 揑n no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers

melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500

degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and

hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about

1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum

upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800

degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1,

figure 6-36)?3

Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point:

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the

WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists

believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns

very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true….

The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most

definitely not capable of melting steel.18

We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable

of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the

molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its

collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST

reported 1,100 癈.13 We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high temperatures.

9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence

NIST: 揘IST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World

Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction

of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards

where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated

that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel

used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.?he lack of

WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure厰.1

Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC

Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened

to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

For more than three months, structural steel from the

World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for

scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about

high-rise building design practices and performance under fire

conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again

in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of

government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific

investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I

have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA

921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the

destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.19

And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for

testing, it is clear that an 揺normous amount?of the WTC steel was

examined either for or by NIST, and the samples selected were chosen

for their identified importance to the NIST investigation.20

We agree that only a mall fraction of the enormous amount of

steel?from the Towers was spared and the rest was rapidly recycled.

The destruction of about 99% of the steel, evidence from a crime scene,

was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.

10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)

NIST: 揂n unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper

photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical

yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of

white smoke, stands out?4

揘IST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright

spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four

windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the

flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds

before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this

location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower?3

We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of

an 搖nusual flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke?4

揻ollowed by the flow of a glowing liquid?having n orange glow?[3].

With regard to the 搗ery bright flame?which is generating a plume of

white smoke? NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because

揂luminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures厰.3

Again, we agree.

The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of

an orange-glowing liquid remain open questions in the NIST report. NIST

opened a very appropriate line of investigation by publishing these

significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an important starting point for further discussion which we seek.

11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation

FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute

investigative team): 揝ample 1 (From WTC 7)?Evidence of a severe high

temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and

sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible

in the near-surface microstructure? Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)?
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to

a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. 匱he severe corrosion and

subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No

clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified?A

detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed厰2

We agree that the physical evidence for evere high temperature

corrosion attack?involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds

for an interesting discussion: How were evere high temperatures?
reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that

attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions

may help us find the explanation for the otal collapse?of the Towers

and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.

The WPI researchers published their results2, 21

and called for detailed study?of this igh-temperature?搊xidation

and sulfidation?phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored

by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers?destruction.3, 4

Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking

phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this

oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their

long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe

high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well

established.22

It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we

offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding

and security.

12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations

NIST: he more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case

D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete

sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the

extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or

eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the

investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical

reality. Thus, for instance卼he pulling forces on the perimeter columns

by the sagging floors were adjusted…4

he primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to

provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter

columns.4

he results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each

tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the

building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse?sup>4

We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no

doubt djusted the input?to account for the Towers?destruction,

after the fire-endurance physical tests did not support their

preordained collapse theory.

But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were

provided without visualizations and without sufficient detail for

others to validate them, is hardly compelling. An article in the

journal New Civil Engineer states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are

refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin

Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE

has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used

to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the

[NIST] investigators. 匒 leading US structural engineer said NIST had

obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact

and fire models. 揃y comparison the global structural model is not as

sophisticated,?he said. he software used [by NIST] has been pushed

to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications,

extrapolations and judgment calls?23

Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by Eric Douglas.24

We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations

made by NIST and the need for visualizations using numerical and

graphical tools to scrutinize and validate the finite-element analysis.

13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking

NIST: his letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for

correction?we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total

collapse?25

This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the

collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of

a shock to interested parties including Congress, which commissioned

NIST to find a full explanation.

We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for

the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report

stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the

point where each Tower as poised for collapse?4

We offer to help find that elusive 揻ull explanation of the total

collapse?of the WTC Towers which killed so many innocent people, in

the hope that it does not happen again. We have a few ideas and can

back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.

14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] 揇id 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. [Answer: ] NIST did not test

for the residue of these compounds in the steel?3

We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of

thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing

for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in

particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the

NFPA 921 code:

Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26

Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)

would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands

of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and

explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not

looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene

investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.26

NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:

Abel: ..what about that letter where NIST said it

didn’t look for evidence of explosives??Neuman [spokesperson at NIST,

listed on the WTC report]: Right, because there was no evidence of

that. Abel: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look

for it first? Neuman: If you’re looking for something that isn’t

there, you’re wasting your time… and the taxpayers?money.?27

The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for

the fact that NIST approach here affects the lives of so many

innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other

residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is asting your time.?We may

be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues

in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods,

especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the

buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for

thermite use is mounting.13, 22

CONCLUSIONS

We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with

FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking

destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at

near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree

that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the

idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the

Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors ancaked?to account for

total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7

(which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view

of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look

for residues of explosives.3, 22, 27

Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and

correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have

candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):

搮we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse?25

We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a

matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives

of thousands of people may very well depend on it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman, Dr. Gregory

Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kuttler, Prof. David R.

Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen, Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom,

Prof. Graeme MacQueen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org and STJ911.org.See Reference here.

Tags: blogger, cate, common ground, pace, period of time, premise, spokesperson, us congress

Related posts

• The week’s best films
• The great Shakespeare revival
• Sun Tools Let Vars Cut Data Center Power Costs
• Shop, horror, as A & R crosses border
• Shop, horror, as A & R crosses border
• Shop, horror, as A & R crosses border
• SA Greening Soweto, a tree at a time
• Robert McChesney’s ”Communication Revolution”
• Over Five Million Dead in Congo?
• No one’s too young for a play

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm and is filed under Find Cate Mandigo. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.